Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Benefit Payments

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will further review the arrangements for the payments of benefits.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): My Department has made significant progress in modernising and streamlining the delivery of benefits. For instance, clearance times for most major benefits have been reduced by nearly a third in the two years since the creation of the Benefits Agency. The Benefits Agency has published proposals on moving towards a one-stop service so that each claimant can obtain a comprehensive service covering all benefits from one point of contact.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State tell me how I am now to reply to the cries of concern and anguish being expressed by my constituents in West Cumbria and throughout the north-west region over the prospects of cuts and revisions in invalidity benefit, in housing benefit and in sickness benefit, which can only generate even greater insecurity in families who already

live on the breadline? Does the Secretary of State understand that people throughout the country are deeply concerned about what is happening in his Department'?

Mr. Lilley: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman responds in two ways. First, he should speak to his Front-Bench spokesman who has been deliberately scaremongering. Secondly, he should refer his constituents to the exchange between myself and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 May, when I asked him to name a single scare that he had run in the whole of the past year which had come true. He failed to do so because he could not do so. He is a scaremongerer. We are in the business of improving the benefit system—that is what our long-term review is designed to achieve.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In my right hon. Friend's proper concern to ensure that benefits are provided both cost effectively and in a manner convenient to clients, will he, with colleagues in other Departments, look again constructively and sympathetically at the case for allowing local authority social services departments to make cash payments directly to severely disabled people to enable them, when they wish to do so, to make their own arrangements for personal and domestic assistance?

Mr. Lilley: I recognise the important part that my hon. Friend has played in this question. He was concerned to ensure that there was a cash element and we did achieve a cash element in the disability living allowance. My hon. Friend would like it to go further. We were not able to make it possible for local authorities to give cash grants —indeed, they do not have the legal power to do so. However, I will keep the matter under continuous review. I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Bradley: The fears of claimants throughout the country, not only in the north-west, are about the level of benefits. They are especially concerned following the imposition of VAT on fuel. Since the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that pensioners will be more than compensated—I repeat, more than compensated—for the imposition of VAT on fuel, will the right hon. Gentleman


allay the fears of millions of pensioners, both those on benefit levels and those just above, and tell us today exactly what that compensation will be?

Mr. Lilley: I have made it clear that I shall be announcing in the normal way—in the uprating statement in November—the arrangements that we propose to make to give extra help to the most vulnerable groups. That is over and above the automatic reflection of the increase in the cost of living that comes through in all benefits in the subsequent November. We will have extra help in the pockets of people in the most vulnerable groups at the time when the increased cost comes through.
My right hon. Friend made it quite clear in that interview that he had referred to the additional money that we have already put in people's pockets from April this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "More than compensated."] Oh, he did. He referred to the change in arrangements that means that no one will have to pay a penny of council tax. For the most vulnerable groups, that is worth £2·90 a week.

Mr. Ward: In reviewing the arrangements for paying benefits, will my right hon. Friend look again at the arrangements for so-called new age travellers? It seems that those people can still claim benefit. They are clearly not available for work; they are an absolute scourge on the south-west of England; and they are taking up a lot of police time in our constituencies.

Mr. Lilley: I understand the great concern that is felt both by hon. Members and by people at large at any thought that people who are not entitled to benefit are ripping off the system—whether they are new age travellers or not. My hon. Friend will remember the changes that I made last year, which meant that people who are not actively seeking work and make no pretence of doing so will not be entitled to even the hardship rate of income support. I am pleased to say that during one large gathering—called a rave, I believe—at which several thousand of these gentlemen and ladies were present, only 100 people made any request for benefit.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he expects to pay in 1993–94 in compensation for late payments of benefits under the new compensation arrangements announced on 4 May.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The revised compensation scheme significantly improves the arrangements that have been in place since 1977. It is not possible to predict how much will be paid in 1993–94. However, we expect some 80,000 to 90,000 people to benefit from the special scheme for disability living allowance customers, at a cost of around £3 million.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for the statement that he made. Does he not accept, however, that much more important than compensation for late payment is prompt payment of benefit to which people are ordinarily entitled? In that context, will he tell us what is the review procedure for ensuring that the backlog is reduced, what rights people have to enable them to deal with maladministration resulting in benefit delays of the sort with which his statement of 4 May was intended to deal and, above all, how organisations such as the Drink Crisis Centre in my constituency—which is owed more than £50,000 by the Benefits Agency—can expect to be

able to secure prompt payment so that people suffering hardship today, rather than in the future, can be compensated at the time at which they are meant to be paid?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman has a look at what is being achieved by the Benefits Agency in the delivery of benefits, he will find that there have been substantial improvements. For example, income support, in respect of which we set a target of five days, is now being delivered in 3·5 days on average and social fund decisions, which were being made within seven days, are now made within 4·3 days. That improvement in performance is reflected across the board.
There is a specific question about DLA later and I prefer to deal with that subject then.

Mr. Sweeney: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Benefits Agency is doing to try to speed up the payment of disability living allowance?

Mr. Scott: Yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency announced some months ago the specific actions, which included an increase in the number of staff, the establishment of remote processing units and the working of overtime. Those measures have delivered: virtually the whole backlog of DLA claims has now been cleared and the benefit is being delivered ahead of the targets that we have set.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the objectives of the system should be to ensure that unnecessary fears are not placed in the minds of recipients of benefits? In that context, does he further accept that there is a great deal of fear among old-age pensioners—fear that has been generated not by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by the interpretation placed on the future intentions of Ministers by organisations representing post offices and by the popular press? In the light of the words of the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that no changes will be made in the present system under which old-age pensioners and others can receive their benefits through sub-post offices?

Mr. Scott: I cannot do better than to reflect the remarks of my right hon. Friend not a few months ago but a few moments ago, which was that our aim is to secure an improvement in the present system of social security, including the delivery of benefits to those who are entitled to them. We regret as much as anyone the scaremongering that takes place among Opposition Members.

Social Security (Aims and Objectives)

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the aims and objectives of the social security system.

Mr. Lilley: Our aim is to ensure that people have the means to cope with the main risks and needs that they face during their lives from their own or their employers' provision, from contributory benefits or from the state safety net.

Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the overriding priority of the social security system must be to provide help for the genuinely less well off? Will he confirm whether he has seen


suggestions that have been floating around for using the tax system to claw back universal benefits and for the possibility of ending the universal provision of 'child benefit? Given that those proposals are being put about by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, does not he think that it is time that the Labour party stopped shedding crocodile tears and spreading scare stories and came clean about what benefits Labour would tax and what benefits it would cut?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the focus of our benefit system is increasingly on those in greatest need and about getting the Opposition to come clean about their proposals. The Labour party spokesman is present so perhaps he can comment on the proposal of his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that we should merge the tax and benefits systems. That can only mean means testing every universal benefit. Is that not what it means? Is that Labour policy or can the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscaden (Mr. Dewar) explain it?

Mr. Dewar: May I first observe the niceties and courtesies of the House by welcoming the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to the Government Front Bench? I doubt whether he will be able to fill in full technicolour the role played by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), but we will all watch with interest the development of someone whom the Yorkshire Post described as
Just William: the schoolboy sensation becomes a Government Minister.
With regard to the question, is it the Secretary of State's view that reflecting and questioning the expressed views of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury amounts to scaremongering? If he is concerned about the fears that are undoubtedly arising from the present review, would it not be sensible for him to trim off now some of the more damaging examples? For example, will he rule out the taxation of invalidity benefit and any changes in eligibility designed to exclude people who are genuinely struggling with ill health? Will he make it clear now that the housing costs of the poor will not be unreasonably increased by mean-minded changes in housing benefit?
Does not he recognise that the fears of those struggling to make ends meet on limited incomes are greatly increased by the failure of the Secretary of State and his like to slam the door on schemes that would spell disaster for some of the most vulnerable in our community? He is in government. He has the power to legislate. I think that he should clear up the situation.

Mr. Lilley: I can respond very frankly to that. I can whole-heartedly and unequivocally assure the hon. Gentleman that none of the changes from our long-term review will make vulnerable people worse off or, in the hon. Gentleman's words, will be unreasonable. However, I do not expect that in any way to influence his campaign of scaremongering or that of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who, on 29 October, released some documents allegedly from my Department which, he said, showed that it was
the poorest, weakest and frailest who have been targeted to pay the price"—
blah, blah, blah—
in the coming PES round.

He was wrong, but what has he done? He leaked exactly the same documents last week and made different assertions about what they indicate—never knowingly underleaked.

Mr. Sykes: In view of the disaster that overwhelmed my constituency this weekend when one of our greatest hotels slipped into the sea, will my right hon. Friend ask the local manager of the benefits office to make an urgent visit to the area to help those most in need who have been affected by this most dreadful event?

Mr. Lilley: I realise what impact that very sad event must have had in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will certainly convey his point to the local benefits office. It has a record of prompt response to such emergencies, and I am sure that it will deal with the matter appropriately.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although every political party has a duty to taxpayers to look carefully at the size and delivery of benefits, the review that he is undertaking is Treasury-led and is about cutting the size of the social security budget? Does he further accept that if the Government got the unemployment level down to the level that they inherited from Labour in 1979 and recouped merely half of the tax cuts going to the richest 1 per cent. of the population, there would be no crisis in public sector borrowing?

Mr. Lilley: Although I normally agree with the hon. Gentleman on quite a lot of things, I would not agree that the review is Treasury-led or that the objective is to go back to a lower level of benefits—certainly not the much lower level of benefits that we had under the Labour Government, since when we have increased spending by two thirds.
What we want is a better system which ensures that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that all of us have the means to cope with the needs and variations of life. But to do that we must make sure that the benefits system is affordable. It cannot indefinitely outstrip the economic means that the country has to pay for it. If it did so, it would become unsustainable. That would be the greatest betrayal of those in need and damage the economy. We have a long-term review to ensure that we have a better, but sustainable, benefits system which is growing at least in line with what we can afford to finance.

Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in recent years the disincentive for people to work because they are on social security has been greatly reduced? Will he confirm also that many people are inhibited from going back to work because of the threat to their housing benefit? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take that matter very seriously in his review?

Mr. Lilley: On the latter point, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we will take into account such matters when we review those aspects of the benefits system in the long-term review. My hon. Friend is right; there are still some people who face disincentives to work, and we have to keep them under close review. Equally, we have removed the appalling situation in which people actually earned less when they returned to work than they did when they were on benefits. The over 100 per cent. withdrawal and tax combined rates have been eliminated.

Disability Living Allowance

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has now resolved the backlog of disability living allowance claims.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog of claims for disability allowance.

Mr. Scott: The Benefits Agency has been meeting its primary clearance targets for new claims since February, and only a very small number of older disability living allowance claims remain to be processed. I am pleased to tell the House that the one millionth award of DLA and attendance allowance was made last month. That amply demonstrates the success of those benefits.

Mr. Pike: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, following the introduction of DLA in April last year, the original situation was quite appalling. May I express my thanks to the hotline people for their assistance to Members of Parliament? However, it should never have been necessary to establish a hotline for hon. Members. Indeed, I am sure that the many cases in my constituency represented only a fraction of the cases in which there were delays. May we be assured that such a situation will never occur again? If there are delays for any reason, will the Minister consider people being notified of why there is unacceptable delay so that they will know exactly what the situation is?

Mr. Scott: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers and the Benefits Agency have studied very carefully the lessons to be learnt from the introduction of DLA and the delays that occurred because of the unexpected surge at its introduction. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been pleased with the service that he has had from the hotline, but it was only one of a number of steps that were taken to enhance the ability to respond by telephone to Members of Parliament, those who advise customers of the Benefits Agency and customers themselves. A very great deal has been done. I am delighted to say that we have made substantial improvements. It is worth pondering, particularly by Opposition Members, that in the first year of DLA we delivered that benefit to seven times as many people who received mobility allowance when the Labour Government introduced it.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not have the guts to tell us how many people have died since the backlog built up in the first instance? Will he tell the House that no fewer than 1,000 people have died waiting for benefit and that, as a result, that money has been saved? If some of the beneficiaries live to be old enough to get their pension, they will find that the Post Office has been closed by this lousy rotten Government and they cannot get it. I have two proposals for the Minister. One, use the computer that collects income tax to get those benefits paid and, secondly, he should pay some of the people who cannot get their benefits out of the Norman Lamont legal aid defence reserve fund.

Mr. Scott: As ever, the hon. Gentleman goes way, way over the top. I do not know from where he invents his figures, but the fact is that the delivery of disability benefits is better than it has ever been in the history of their payment. There is no question of any savings accruing to

the Government from any delays that have occurred. We are determined not only to maintain but, where possible, to improve the level of service that we now give.

Mrs. Roe: I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the DLA. That benefit has been introduced in one go, unlike the mobility allowance which it took the Labour party four years to phase in.

Mr. Scott: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The staff of the Benefits Agency deserve our congratulations and not our criticisms on their performance. This year, we set the Benefits Agency an enhanced target of delivering 65 per cent. of claims within 30 days. Today, it is delivering 75 per cent. of DLA claims within that period.

Mr. Hawkins: I share my right hon. Friend's pleasure in the fact that the service to DLA claimants has improved dramatically, but he is aware of a number of cases involving my constituents which are still subject to considerable delays. I have sent him the detail on those cases and I am grateful to him for the attention that he has already given to them. Will he take further steps to ensure that the speed of service in dealing with outstanding claims is yet further improved in the light of the welcome improvements that have already been made?

Mr. Scott: I will certainly do that. I am aware that a handful of claims—about 40—that were made in 1992 are still outstanding for a variety of reasons. In a number of cases, people may have failed to respond to inquiries by the Benefits Agency or sometimes a payment is already in payment because of a duplicate claim. It is worth the House grasping one figure in particular: of the 705,000 claims for DLA made last year, 99·99 per cent. are in award.

Mr. Eastham: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that many hon. Members have processed cases to the Department that have been subject to long delays, sometimes due to the loss of papers and goodness knows what. I recently dealt with a case that had been considered for more than two years before the person finally got his entitlement. Is it not correct that there should be some kind of cut-off line, so that after three months or six months, when a claimant is finally paid his benefit, he should at least be paid interest on his entitlement? The same thing happens to people who pay income tax and who are charged interest if they delay in paying the Government.

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter, I think that he will find that the Department has improved its arrangements for compensation for the late payment of benefits. Special arrangements have been made for those who have been affected by delays in the delivery of DLA.

Maxwell Pensions Unit

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future of the Maxwell pensions unit; and at what point he will consider its work complete.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): The Maxwell pensions unit


still has an important role to play in assisting the pension scheme trustees, the liquidators and others in their work. We expect such assistance to continue for some time.

Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Minister is aware that he has inherited a very heavy responsibility towards Maxwell pensioners, which is also a source of concern to many hon. Members. He will be aware that many thousands of those pensioners have had 18 months of uncertainty about whether their pensions will be met in full. There has been some success in recovering funds. At what stage would the Minister be prepared to guarantee that Maxwell pensioners will receive the sum that they anticipated receiving before the death of Robert Maxwell?

Mr. Hague: I am certainly aware of the depth and scale of the problem described by the hon. Gentleman, and I fully understand and sympathise with the anxieties expressed and uncertainties faced by Maxwell pensioners, many of whom are connected with the Headington plan in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is worth reflecting on the enormous progress made during the past year. The long-term gap between the Maxwell pension scheme's assets and liabilities seems likely to be less than £100 million. The scheme trustees have told the Select Committee that they are guardedly optimistic about meeting their pension liabilities in full. That represents a huge improvement on the scheme's position only months ago. There is no question of using taxpayers' money to compensate people for the consequences of fraud, but the Government, the Maxwell pensions unit and all involved have made tremendous progress during the past few months—I hope that they will continue to do so.

Mr. Page: I unreservedly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment which, I am sure, will be one of a number of glittering future appointments—

Mr. Skinner: The Minister should make the hon. Gentleman his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. Page: That would be too much. I pay tribute to the work of the Maxwell pensions unit. Together with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I perhaps have the most experience of the work of the unit, which has done a magnificent job in helping the Maxwell pensioners. That fact must not be forgotten by the House. Will my hon. Friend lift his eyes to the horizon to see whether his Department can work on legislation to protect future occupational pensions and protect the innocents of the future from the Maxwells of the future?

Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome, and I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his earlier words of welcome. My hon. Friend was right to speak of the outstanding work of the Maxwell pensions unit, which, since it was established, has done a tremendous job in helping to mediate in its investigatory role. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, on the issue of future legislation, the Government can make no commitment until the pension law review committee has reported. We expect its report at the end of September. No doubt my hon. Friend will have representations to make then, to which we shall be delighted to listen.

State Benefits

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to encourage contracting out of state benefits.

Mr. Lilley: The Government have always favoured encouraging people to choose to make extra financial provision for themselves where appropriate. We are committed to introducing age-related rebates to make it equally attractive to people of all ages to join private pension schemes.

Ms Eagle: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether, as part of the current review being conducted, his Department has held meetings with private insurance firms about the possibility of contracting out state benefits and arrangements for the payment of health service and other benefits of the welfare state? Does he realise that extending the privatisation principle to the welfare state will sound its death knell? Where in the last Tory election manifesto did it say that the Conservative party would butcher the welfare state?

Mr. Lilley: The last point made by the hon. Lady is unworthy of someone of her intelligence. A modern welfare state is expensive and we may have to stop doing certain things in order to perform other tasks more successfully. It was not me who said that, but the Labour Co-ordinating Committee. The hon. Lady had better have words with her friends if she is worried about people ceasing to do things in the welfare state. It does not damage the welfare state to enable people to make additional provision for themselves, which was an intrinsic principle on which Beveridge based the system.
We are meeting people in the insurance and pension world to discuss the proposals that I mentioned in my main answer, the arrangements that we shall have to introduce and the consultations that we shall have to hold to enable pension funds to conform to the European Court judgment on the equalisation of private pension arrangements and their co-ordination with a state scheme. We consult on and discuss all these things. There is no question of doing anything surreptitious that will butcher the welfare state.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid growth of the Department's budget since 1979 not only reflects our commitment to the most needy but is a cause for concern? Is not the contracting out of genuinely insured benefits to the private sector, where they are genuinely fully funded, an advantage to the people concerned and an advantage to the Department—because that enables resources to be better devoted to those who really need them?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in both respects. The fact that we have increased public expenditure on the welfare state by two thirds in real terms since 1979 is guarantee enough of our commitment to that system; but my hon. Friend is right to say that the great advantage of private provision—unlike state provision, which is based on pay-as-you-go arrangements with nothing set aside or saved or invested for the future—is that private schemes are fully funded and savings are made and invested in British industry to develop the assets which


will create the resources to pay for pensions and other benefits in future years. That is good for the economy, for the individual and for the welfare system.

Mrs. Golding: This Government seem to spend many thousands of pounds on advice and instruction, much of it to do with the social security system, including contracting out. Will the Secretary of State reply to one of my constituents, who has written to ask me whether the Government will provide a helpful guide setting out the best way in which people can survive on their pensions? Perhaps he will consider starting with another of my constituents, who is 76 years old, who has no savings and who has £67·55 a week to live on. Could the right hon. Gentleman give him any guidance on how he can pay his gas, electricity and water charges, his council tax, fares and telephone charges, and save towards maintenance and repairs of his home? In addition, my constituent has to clothe himself, eat and pay for his one pleasure in the form of a television licence. Will the Secretary of State produce a helpful guide for this constituent?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady knows full well that no one in this country has to survive only on the basic pension. Because we have encouraged so many people to make additional provision, two thirds of all new pensioners have occupational pensions on top of the basic pension; a great many other people have other savings and investment income as well, and those who have none receive income support on top of the pension—and other income-related beneits to which they are entitled. We have been able to enhance those benefits because of our success in encouraging people to make private provision and in focusing additional help on those who need it—as we did last October, when we gave £2 more a week to individuals and £3 a week to couples on income-related benefits. In all, £1 billion more has been focused on these very groups in recent years.
My advice is to continue voting Conservative and not to risk going back to Labour, which undermined all pensioners by inflation.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible world would be means testing for the basic state pension, which would discourage people from making private provision? Is not the future for people in work now to make their own private pension provision; and will the Government continue to encourage them to do just that?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the mix towards which Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are moving—discouraging private provision and means testing the basic pension. Then they try to scare everyone with the idea that we would do something so foolish.

Court of Appeal

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he now expects the Court of Appeal to resume hearing of the chief adjudication officer's appeal against the Commissioner's decision (CS/27/91); and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): It is for the Court of Appeal

to set a date for the hearing. Although we expect a date to be set imminently, I understand that that has not yet been done.

Dr. Godman: This is one the Government are going to lose. Moreover, more than 450 women in my constituency are directly involved in Commissioner Skinner's enlightened decision. Lord Henley assured me about two months ago that any women suffering hardship would have their invalidity benefit restored. Why is it that when women in my constituency make such a claim to the local officers they are subjected almost to an interrogation, whereas women in other constituencies have had the money paid with arrears of benefit? Why is there a hard line and inconsistency in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Will the Minister investigate this legitimate complaint against those officers in my constituency?

Mr. Burt: To my knowledge, this is the first time that such a claim has been made. The hon. Gentleman well knows that benefits are administered equally all over the country. He also well knows the reason for the current appeal. The case that Commissioner Skinner decided deals with a principle that the Government are not able to accept in relation to contributory benefits. We are waiting for the appeal to clarify the law, and when that has been done the law will be applied equally to all. As I have said, this is the first time that that specific complaint has been made. I will, of course, investigate any evidence that the hon. Gentleman puts to me about inconsistency of the type that he describes.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Wealth Creation

Mr. Stephen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to increase the science research councils' emphasis on wealth creation.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The central purpose of the White Paper that I published last month, "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", was to bring our many excellent scientists and engineers into an even closer working relationship with the users of their research. This will enable them to contribute more effectively to wealth creation and to improvements in the quality of life in general.

Mr. Stephen: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of reaction to the White Paper from the leaders of science and engineering?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to say that there has been a widespread welcome. I shall quote just two. The noble Lord Flowers, the Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, wrote:
I welcome your White Paper and congratulate you warmly on its content and tone.
The four engineering institutions—chemical, civil, electrical and mechanical—said in a joint statement that they welcomed the White Paper on science and technology
because it identifies correctly the importance of engineering and technological innovation in the process of wealth creation.

Mr. Stevenson: In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, the White Paper has its critics. Can the


Chancellor of the Duchy explain why another attitude seems to have been taken by the Department of Trade and Industry? For example. the ceramic, scientific and resèarch establishment in Stoke-on-Trent is waiting for the Department of Trade and Industry to provide £190,000 that is desperately needed. How does that square with the contents of the White Paper?

Mr. Waldegrave: I will, of course, pursue with my colleague the specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and write to him. The Department of Trade and Industry has been reviewing its grant schemes and has refocused them, particularly on small and medium-sized firms, which is right. Perhaps that review has delayed matters in this case. I will find out for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend's important White Paper is based on a careful balance between considerations of utility in science and considerations of scientific excellence. Will he assure us that, in implementing the White Paper's provisions, he will pay proper regard to considerations of scientific excellence, especially in relation to the research councils?

Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the major part that he played in writing the White Paper. His has been a clear voice for science in his constituency and in his work in my Department. I thank him for that. I can give the House the assurance that he seeks. Nothing in the White paper detracts from the importance of the best basic research. We need to do such research, but it must be done against the background of closer interaction between the science base and industry.

Disabled People

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to publish a comprehensive charter for the disabled.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): None. All charters should address the needs of all those who use the service.

Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the fact that organisations representing different categories of disabled people are extremely anxious to see comprehensive legislation on their behalf and that 297 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion relating to such legislation. Will he think again about providing at least a citizens charter that would cater for those who are disabled and would tell them what they can expect in a civilised society, even from this Government?

Mr. Davis: The Government understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. However, the best approach to charters is a service-by-service approach. That is because the people working in that service have targets and performance measures that they can seek to achieve in the interests of the disabled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 27 out of the 31 charters contain a direct reference to disabled people.

Mr. Thurnham: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend as he makes his debut at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that the Government's commitment to people with disabilities is shown by the trebling in real terms of expenditure on the disabled? Is not that a far better record than the Labour

party ever had when it was in power? Has any other Government programme shown such a big increase in spending?

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I shall try to be as helpful to the House in this role as I was in my last. He is quite right to say that the Government have trebled their real commitment to the disabled in the past 15 years. That is not all we have done. We have also made progress on legislation targeted at giving access to new non-domestic buildings, at employment—85,000 disabled people have been helped by specialist advisers—at transport and at many other sectors. That will continue for the future of the Government.

Mr. Wigley: I also welcome the Minister, and look forward to his giving the House the same benefit he gave it in his last job.
However, may I press the hon. Gentleman on the need for disabled people to know what is available to them? In an ideal world, that should be by comprehensive legislation such as anti-discrimination legislation. If such legislation is not forthcoming, there most certainly needs to be a citizens charter. If no such citizens charter is forthcoming, will the Minister add his voice to ensuring that we have an antidiscrimination Bill in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not call him my hon. Friend. The reality is that disabled people want practical assistance and practical access to the services that the Government provide, and we are trying to provide that practical service. For example, as part of the new experimental charterline telephone service that we are providing to tell citizens in the east midlands about Government services, there is a minicom service to help hearing-impaired people. Throughout our policy, everything that we do reflects that practical commitment to giving real access to the disabled.

Mr. Sheerman: While welcoming the Minister to his new position, may I ask him to be more vigorous on behalf of people with a disability? That is what they are, as there are no disabled people in our country. All people with a disability and their organisations have consistently asked not only for a charter, but for a commission to safeguard their rights. Is not it about time that his Government listened to the voice of people with a disability and acted in their interests?

Mr. Davis: I am not going to bandy politically correct words with the hon. Gentleman. My interest is in providing the best service possible. That is what we are trying to do. He may think that that is not the right approach, but we are interested in delivering a good service to every single person suffering from a disability.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government intend to publish a further White Paper on the progress of the citizens charter.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, in due course. That will show that excellent progress continues to be made.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that education is one of the sectors where there is a


demonstrable need for greater accountability on the part of educationists? Will he confirm that, in due course, arrangements will be made for the parents charter to be adjusted to reflect the additional information that will be forthcoming once the Government have ensured that national curriculum testing has been implemented throughout the country?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. It is extraordinary and wrong that, in this most crucial of all public services, some people are trying to prevent publication of comparative information—despite the fact that almost right across the public sector such information is being made available. The majority of people, both in the House and the country, will regret the current action to block testing.

Mr. Barnes: We used to have serious Question Times about issues such as energy before the Government disbanded the Department of Energy. Now, there are questions about charters, which are a complete and utter waste of time. Does not the Minister think that it is about time that some serious issues were brought before the House?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has contributed to serious questions because he has not even asked one. Surely he is aware that his Front-Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), is so keen on charters that she has claimed that she invented them herself. The hon. Gentleman may be a little out of tune with his Front Bench.

"Reinventing Government"

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his meeting with the authors of' "Reinventing Government".

Mr. Waldegrave: I have had meetings with both authors and have been impressed by the way in which they have put forward proposals very similar to ours in the citizens charter, aimed at getting better performance out of public services at a time of spending restraint.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a considerable number of years the Government have been putting in place many of the elements of what Osborne and Gaebler term "entrepreneurial government"? Rather than mock the citizens charter, would not the Labour party do better to learn from it?
Does my right hon. Friend further agree that if the approach outlined in "Reinventing Government" is to be developed further here, as I believe it must be, two implications follow—we will need a new and better concordat between central and local government and we shall need more freedom of information?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter two points, first, the Government have made it clear that they want good relations with local government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently met the leaders of the various associations. Secondly, I assure my hon. Friend that no other Government have taken such steps to widen the publication of information.
On the Osborne and Gaebler point, I shall quote Joe Rogaly, an independent journalist who writes in the Financial Times. He said about the Labour party:

It is as if it not only missed the Osborne and Gaebler bus, it never saw it coming.
That is an accurate description of the Labour party's understanding of these issues.

Ms Mowlam: I want to clarify one point. The Labour party did create charters at the local authority level—in York, Birmingham and Leicester—before the Minister even thought of them. The distinct point is that charters actually work at the local level because there is commitment to accountability and freedom of information, which is not shared by the Government. The Minister was fulsome in his praise of "Reinventing Government" and he quoted Joe Rogaly. Is he aware that the authors said that if market testing is just about skimping on wages, the Government should re-evaluate what they are doing? The authors of the Minister's favourite book asked for that, and for some time we have been asking for a moratorium on market testing. It now appears that the Minister will not meet his targets for market testing that he wanted to achieve by September. Is he now listening to us about moratoriums on market testing as well as about charters?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is not my job to sort out the problems within the Labour party on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have some discussions with her hon. Friends. It is clear that she has not read the book, which has a strong passage in support of market testing. Obviously, she has also not read the White Paper "Competing for Quality". It is not just about cutting costs; it is about quality. If we can get quality at lower costs, that is certainly what we should do.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principles of Osborne and Gaebler is that both national and local government should be steering rather than rowing, to put it in their terms? Is not that in line with the Government's commitment to contracting out? Are there not lessons for Labour local authorities, especially education authorities, in their attitude towards grant-maintained schools, which have precisely the independence that is so lauded by Osborne and Gaebler?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, although I think that some far-seeing people on the left also understand that. I am sorry that the Opposition do not. John Willman, who used to run the Fabian Society, wrote:
In the UK it has been the Conservatives under John Major who have seized the 'reinventing' government agenda.
That is true.

Research Vessel Service

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultation he has had regarding the future of the research vessel service at Barry, Glamorgan.

Mr. David Davis: None. That matter is for the Natural Environment Research Council.

Mr. Morgan: Notwithstanding that buck-passing answer, and despite my earlier congratulations to the Minister on his elevation from the Whips Office, does he agree that the key to the research vessel service's move to Southampton, if it does occur, is that it must remain an independent facility available to all marine science and oceanography university departments and other research bodies in the United Kingdom? The NERC's latest


proposal is that the service will become part of Southampton university's department of oceanography, so the marine science departments in Cardiff, Cambridge, Bangor, Aberdeen and elsewhere believe that they will get the mucky end of the stick and that Southampton will run the whole show. Does the Minister agree that that contradicts the original purpose of the service's move from Barry to Southampton?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I did not realise that universities had become closed societies. The intention behind moving the facility to Southampton is to create a world-class centre for research and development and training on one site, which will make more efficient use of resources and improve support for staff and students. All that is to be welcomed.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the research vessel service is a classic example of the kind of NERC facility that could be put out to market testing? Should not more NERC services be put out for market testing?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is correct. It is our intention to put out the operational side of the research vessel service to market testing. We would expect to see improved efficiency and quality of service arising from that.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from disabled people's organisations in respect of the citizens charter.

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a constructive meeting with the all-party disablement group in December 1992.

Mr. Wareing: My question referred to "disabled people's organisations". Does the Minister think it right —citizens charter or no citizens charter—that a disabled person should be shown the door of a public house simply because he or she is deaf? Does he believe that it is right for it to be legal to discriminate against a disabled person, who can be ejected from a cinema or prevented from taking out an insurance policy? Is that first-class citizenship for the disabled? Will the Government legislate against such practices? If not, what will the Minister do about them?

Mr. Davis: Obviously, no one approves of the sort of behaviour to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The solution is not the creation of legal rights specific to people with disabilities. That would not be practical or effective.

Scientific Links (Japan)

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is taking to improve Britain's scientific links with Japan.

Mr. David. Davis: I can announce that an advisory group is being set up by the Office of Science and Technology to advise the Government on developing links

with not only Japan but all Pacific rim countries. Later this year, we shall host the third in a series of high-level, round-table talks between senior science policymakers from the United Kingdom and Japan. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will visit Japan in the autumn.

Dr. Clark: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when bilateral meetings with the Japanese take place to discuss scientific links, they will truly be two-way dialogues? Does he agree that it would be inappropriate for us to continue to provide ideas for the Japanese to develop without a balance of information in the opposite direction?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend voices a widespread belief, which is not entirely unfounded, that Japanese business scours the world for free ideas. One has to say, who can blame them?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reality is, if Opposition Members will wait for it, that Japan is paying hundreds of billions more every year in royalties to purchase licences, and so on. It is in our interests to encourage that, because we receive more than £1 billion a year in royalty and licence income. As to my hon. Friend's specific question, the White Paper, "Realising our Potential", set out our way of making the best use of British research. That includes technology foresight, which is a Japanese technique for achieving the very aims to which my hon. Friend referred. We will, of course, seek to make the meetings, as my hon. Friend said, a two-way dialogue.

Departmental Papers

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria are applied in decisions on whether to make departmental policy papers available to the public.

Mr. Waldegrave: Ministers and their Departments have a duty to give Parliament and the public as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of government, within necessary constraints such as considerations of national security, protection of privacy and confidentiality of advice given by civil servants to Ministers.

Mr. Wicks: Given the Government's alleged commitment to open government and freedom of information, and given that national security implications are not involved, will the Minister arrange for the publication of the review contained in the public expenditure departmental papers? If he is able to do that, will he also arrange for me to pop round and look at some of the papers this afternoon?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. Discussions within government leading to public expenditure decisions should be—and would be, under any freedom-of-information regime in the world—private to government until those decisions are made.

Points of Order

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from any Minister to make a statement about the agreement by the Council of Ministers to approve the working time directive that involves the 48-hour week provision? Is not the matter desperately important, given the conflicting advice from Brussels and Whitehall in regard to whether the directive will have the force of law while the Government are contemplating an appeal to the European Court? Should not a statement be made?

Madam Speaker: I have received no such request. No doubt Ministers have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise what I consider to be a gross breach of the conventions of the House; I think that you may agree. I have given notice to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) of my intention to raise the matter.
A constituent of mine, Susan May, was convicted of murder on 5 May. She has written from Risley prison—an action group formed only two weeks ago has written as well—to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, who has a certain reputation some would say, notoriety—for his interest in the more lurid happenings in the Oldham area, which includes his constituency.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order must be addressed to me, and should not be colourful or elaborate.

Mr. Davies: It is a convention, Madam Speaker, for us regularly to forward letters addressed from neighbouring constituencies to the hon. Members concerned. On this occasion, far from forwarding the letters that he had received to me—and despite having announced to the local press that he had done so—the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth has said that he is taking an interest in the case, and will discuss it with the Attorney-General. The Susan May action group has subsequently met me and put me in the picture, and Susan May's solicitors have submitted an appeal.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to reinforce the conventions of the House, to ensure that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth does not interfere in my constituency cases or those of any other hon. Member; that he forwards to me the representations that he has received from my constituents; and that he bears in mind that he is singularly ill placed to take up the interests of anyone convicted of murder, given that he regularly professes to be in favour of capital punishment.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I did make a statement in the local paper, because I had received a number of letters about the case. I referred all my correspondents to their Member of Parliament, suggesting that they bring the matter to his attention. It was only when I had gone home for the recess that I found a letter from the prisoner herself—a cry for help, asking me to take an interest in her case.
The House has only just reassembled, and I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the prisoner's Member of Parliament. He has acknowledged receipt of a letter that I sent to the prisoner, and placed on the Board today. He will understand the details. I do not think that you should have been bothered with the matter, Madam Speaker; it is so petty. Here is someone in prison, convicted of murder; meanwhile, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) is making petty points about that person in the House of Commons.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with that point of order.
That is not a matter for the Speaker of this House. However, the convention is that hon. Members do not act on behalf of another Member's constituents in personal cases. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about whether or not letters have been forwarded, or received. That is not, as I have said, a matter for me, and it cannot be resolved on the Floor of the House. I hope that both hon. Members can agree between themselves how this matter is to be pursued.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On an entirely different point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible, even at this very late stage, to table an amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill to prevent the purchase of political parties by trade unions? I need your advice, in the light of the remarks of John Edmonds today that we—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman immediately. I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. If he comes to see me later, I shall do my best to advise him.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have here a booklet that describes the procedure to be followed by Ministers over the acceptance of presents. The advice that they are given is that they should not accept presents, as Ministers should be under no obligation. Would it be possible for hon. Members to submit questions to the Table Office regarding the representations made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, regarding Mr. Nadir who, as you know, has fled justice?
Would it be possible for hon. Members to find out from questions, which I hope could be tabled, why the Secretary of State and the Minister of State made representations about someone who is not one of their constituents? In addition, what proceedings could we take to find out whether anything has taken place which should not have taken place?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put to me a most convoluted point of order, but again it is a question of procedure. If the hon. Gentleman wants advice about procedure, he ought to go and see the authorities of the House, or come and see me, as I advised earlier. I am not prepared to give advice on matters of procedure across the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some advice on what to do when Ministers state that they cannot answer a question, on the grounds of disproportionate


cost? I asked a specific question about the cost over the next 20 years of the commitment to public sector pensions for civil servants and others. I have been told that the unfunded liability, which does not appear anywhere in Government accounts, is £170 billion. I wanted that figure to be broken down for me on an annualised basis. When one is considering £170 billion of public expenditure, it would surely not be disproportionately costly to be provided with the details of that expenditure.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is arguing about the decision of a Minister. I am certainly not going to discuss such a decision. It is for Ministers to argue for themselves. Perhaps it is because I am looking so fresh after my holidays that there are so many points of order today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you said that it was not a matter for you but that it was a convention of the House that Members of Parliament did not take up cases in somebody else's constituency. Will you, then, help us to explain to our constituents how it comes about that not just a Back Bencher but a Minister of the Crown—the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—was able to take up the case of Asil Nadir, who was not one of his constituents?
Would it not make a lot of sense if he were to come to the House, along with the President of the Board of Trade, to explain the precise relationship between Asil Nadir and the Tory party and the representations that have been made on his behalf?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, find some parliamentary method by means of which he can tease out those matters.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Madam Speaker. As the Latin quotation—

Madam Speaker: Order. That point of order has been dealt with. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a different point of order.

Mr. Jessel: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to say—

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not take any further points of order on that matter. Does the hon. Gentleman have a fresh point of order for me?

Mr. Jessel: I wanted to say that as the Latin quotation "Non illegitimis carborundum" means "Don't let the bastards grind you down", not "Don't let the buggers get you down"—

Madam Speaker: Order. A little merriment on our first day back is in order, but the hon. Gentleman is going over the top.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I raise a serious matter? During the recess, I sent approximately 250 letters from my constituency office to my constituents, quoting a statement made at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 19 May in the debate on automated credit transfer and post offices. He said:

All small post offices are currently paid a fixed sum, regardless of volume, so people switching to ACT will make little difference to the amount of remuneration they receive." —[Official Report, 19 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 259.]
The problem is that postmistresses in my constituency are challenging that statement, with the result that I—or Parliament, as I am sure that it will apply to many of my hon. Friends—am faced with the expense of sending a further 250 letters to the same constituents to explain that the Secretary of State made a mistake. I cannot say that he deliberately misled the House, but it is for my hon. Friends and the House to decide for themselves what was the intention behind the Secretary of State's statement.
Can you advise us, Madam Speaker? Should I, as a Member of Parliament, be required to correct the record of a statement made by a Minister which, if not deliberately, misled Parliament and meant that I misunderstood? To what extent is it a question of contempt?

Madam Speaker: If it is a question of contempt, the hon. Gentleman should have written to me instead of raising it in this way. It is for all hon. Members to do their best to ensure that their constituents are kept fully informed. If the hon. Gentleman has to send another letter, it is up to him to do so. He is responsible for keeping his constituents informed when they have a particular interest in a matter such as that which he has raised.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have some sympathy with the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend, and I am corresponding with the Minister about this matter. Would it not be useful if the record were put straight and a proper explanation given in Hansard, so that at least the issue of replying could be simplified by the circulation of the amended version?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some member of the Treasury Bench may take up his suggestion but, at this stage, there is nothing further I can do. I have had no request for such a statement to be made.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter to the best of my ability. The hon. Member from the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), was particularly helpful.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but Parliament is now required to correct the record as a result of the Minister's statement. I am asking perhaps for a ruling from you on whether it is a Minister's responsibility to have the record corrected rather than mine, as an individual Member of Parliament, using the House's resources.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it probably behoved the hon. Gentleman to inform me that he intended to raise the point of order and to take advantage of the fact that he asked the first question on this subject at Question Time, which he did not do. It also behoved the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) not to reinforce a point which is misleading the House.
If the hon. Gentleman reads column 260, the very next column to that which he quoted to his constituents, he will


see that I said—I was speaking from memory—that 2,700 post offices were subject to that arrangement. I can now confirm to the House that the exact number is 2,696. It seems to me that the matter is clear in Hansard. He is deliberately misleading his constituents. He should withdraw his comments and send 250 letters of apology.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have now heard three hon. Members casting serious aspersions against my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). Would you confirm that Ministers are free to make their views known about constituency matters and about issues raised by constituents to other Ministers? That is confirmed in the questions of procedure for Ministers which was issued by the Cabinet Office in May last year. It is clear from that document that my hon. Friend has done nothing wrong. Opposition Members should withdraw their accusations.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is confirming that point, he should not seek confirmation from me.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentleman should not be so intolerant. Many are rising to make points of order. Hon. Members should be patient and wait their time.

Mr. Grocott: Can you confirm briefly that, not for the first time, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has got things hopelessly wrong? The crucial issue is hon. Members looking after the interests of their own constituents. Can you confirm from the Chair—this would he very helpful—that all the representations made on behalf of Mr. Nadir by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and by the President of the Board of Trade were not representations made on behalf of their own constituents?
Would it therefore be your guidance to those right hon. and hon. Members that, if they ever make similar representations in future, and on the basis of those already made—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have no intention of making any comments on individual cases that are raised in this manner. It is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Grocott: I think it is.

Madam Speaker: Order. With respect, it is not a point of order for me. No hon. Member should expect me to comment across the Floor of the House on such an individual situation. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It might be helpful to Conservative Members for Opposition Members, when they catch your eye, to tell us whether their allegiance is to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or to John Edmonds, the leader of the Labour party in the country.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hilarity is one thing, but this is an abuse of the time of the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any requests from the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the circumstances in which pits were closed last week, especially in relation to the home security of miners made redundant? Many of those miners have mortgages and the terms of their mortgage policies give no mortgage protection if they are made voluntarily rather than compulsorily redundant.
Has the President of the Board of Trade asked you for permission to come before this House to explain what steps the Government will take to ensure that at least the homes of the miners who have forcibly been made redundant by British Coal will be protected? As things stand, those miners will lose their homes as well as their jobs, because British Coal insists on calling the redundancies voluntary, when the whole world knows that they are compulsory.

Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that no Minister asks me for permission to make a statement. He informs me that he wishes to make a statement. I have no authority in the matter. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had no such information.
We now come to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am most grateful to you. You will know that I was in correspondence with you over the recess on two matters connected with today's proceedings.
First, would it be possible in your view for the Minister during the course of the day to explain why no new immigration rules on asylum or immigration appeal procedure rules are available for today's debate? I checked at the Vote Office a few minutes ago and it confirmed that both instruments are not available. They are extremely important in terms of interpreting the effects of the legislation that we are debating this afternoon.
The second matter concerns the opportunity that the Minister will have today to inform the House about the outcome of the meeting of European Community Immigration Ministers in Copenhagen last week. You will know from our correspondence, Madam Speaker, that it was reported that important decisions with a direct bearing on the substance of this afternoon's debate were taken at that meeting.
I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me today on the matter. He confirms in his letter that
agreement was reached on, amongst other matters, Resolution on guidelines regarding the admission of particularly vulnerable groups of persons from the former Yugoslavia, and on the harmonisation of national policies on family reunification.
Those matters are of literally life-and-death importance. I believe that, rather than the information being given in a letter to me, the Minister should be given an opportunity as early as possible this afternoon to report to the House on the decisions to which he was party last week in Copenhagen. The decisions have important implications for the many people who are settled in this country who are either applying for refugee status or who have refugee status and who wish to have their immediate relatives join them in this country.

Mr. Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The House is to discuss an important matter, but half the documentation


that we need to discuss the matter properly is missing and is not available to hon. Members. I refer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in respect of the rules of procedure relating both to asylum and to immigration appeals. Without those documents, we shall be conducting half a debate this afternoon.
Even at this late stage, is it possible to request that those documents—if available—should be made available to hon. Members?

Madam Speaker: Whether the documents relate to today's debate is a matter of opinion. We shall be debating not the Bill, which has already been debated, but Lords amendments proposed to it. Therefore, it is a matter of opinion for hon. Members and Ministers whether the documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers are necessary for our debate.
In saying that, I think that I also respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). As the hon. Gentleman understands, this is not a general debate on immigration matters. I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern, however. Provided that Back Benchers and Front Benches alike remain within the terms of the amendments before us, the Minister can give the House whatever information he wishes. Perhaps we may now come to the amendments.

Orders of the Day — Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Before clause 3

Lords amendment: No. 1, insert the following new clause— Young unaccompanied asylum seekers—

" (.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish an advisory panel for the purpose of making advice available to a child who has arrived in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him.

(2) The members of such advisory panel shall be appointed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of section (Appointment and. functions of advisory panel) below and shall have the functions therein described.

(3) A member of such advisory panel is referred to as an asylum-seekers adviser.

(4) Where a child unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him arrives in the United Kingdom and is, or appears to an immigration officer to be, under the age of 18 years and such child has made, or may reasonably be considered as desiring to make, a claim for asylum, the immigration officer shall notify the advisory panel with a view to the child being forthwith referred to an appropriate asylum-seekers adviser for the purpose of carrying out the functions described in section (Appointment and functions of advisory panel) below.)."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will he convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree, and Lords amendment No. 12 and the Government motion to disagree. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 involve privilege.

Mr. Wardle: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would place on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a
statutory duty to establish a panel of advisers whose function would be to befriend and advise asylum seekers under the age of 16 who arrive in this country unaccompanied by an adult.
The House will be aware that the amendments were passed on Report in the other place and reflect the widely felt and understandable concern that we should be seen to be doing all we can to protect the interests and welfare of unaccompanied child asylum seekers. The Government understand, respect and share that concern.
Our decision not to accept the two amendments is not based on any lack of sympathy for unaccompanied children arriving in this country. As I shall show shortly, we intend to meet in a very practical manner the spirit and purpose of the proposals by Lord Brightman, who moved the amendments in another place. Let me take this early opportunity to thank the noble Lord and commend him for his courteous advice and helpful guidance on such matters.
I should also make it clear that our decision is not based on questions of cost. The amendments would create a charge on public funds and, if this House disagrees with the amendments, the formal reason which will have to be given is that they infringe the privileges of this House.
However, as I will show shortly, the Government are prepared to provide resources to help meet the needs of those children in what we believe is a more appropriate way. Therefore, cost is not the issue.
The Government are as determined as anyone to see that the immigration status of such children is resolved with the minimum of delay and stress, and that the proper arrangements are made for their care, accommodation, health and education needs. The real point of difference between the Government's approach and the approach adopted in the amendments is that we do not believe that the creation of a statutory panel of advisers is the best way to protect the interests of this group of children.
I will refer in a moment to our own view of how that should be achieved, but first I want to explain why we do not believe that including a statutory requirement in the Bill for the creation of a panel of advisers and the assignment of an adviser to every asylum-seeking child is either necessary or desirable.
The amendments envisage that the adviser would give advice to the young asylum seeker on immigration matters and on a range of welfare issues, including accommodation, health and education. Dealing first with immigration matters, there may be a belief that, without an adviser to protect their interests, unaccompanied children are at risk of being sent to countries where they may be in danger of persecution or where there is no one to look after them.
I can assure the House that any such fears are misplaced and unfounded. In the first place, the 1951 convention on refugees applies to children in exactly the same way that it applies to adults. The strict issue to be resolved in determining a claim for asylum is the same for a child as it is for an adult—would his removal result in his being sent to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened?
Over and above that asylum issue, simple humanity demands that any immigration decision to remove an unaccompanied child involves consideration of whether safe and adequate reception arrangements for the child can be made. We would not send an unaccompanied child to another country, whether or nor that child had claimed asylum, unless we were satisfied that such arrangements had been made.
Of course we recognise that children who are claiming asylum may need help with the presentation of their cases to the Home Office. The Home Office already funds the refugee legal centre to provide advice to asylum seekers and representation in asylum appeals. That body is currently developing a team of counsellors designated to dealing with vulnerable applicants, including children.
Those counsellors will he specialists in asylum procedures and in preparing and presenting cases. They will have access to a considerable body of knowledge about conditions in countries from which asylum seekers come. We do not believe that it would be sensible for a panel of advisers to seek to duplicate that role.
Meeting the longer-term welfare needs of the child is clearly the responsibility of the appropriate local authority. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 make no distinction on the basis of a child's nationality or immigration status. They apply in the same way to

unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as they apply to any other child in this country who has no responsible adult capable of looking after his welfare and interests.
There is a statutory duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of all the children they look after and to satisfy themselves that the welfare of privately fostered children is satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. In other words, the function which the amendments would confer on a new panel of advisers is already part of the statutory function of a local authority.
The local authority is the body best placed in terms of personnel, experience, facilities and resources to care for the needs of unaccompanied children. To create a new statutory' body charged with those functions could create a duplication of effort and blur lines of responsibility.
The amendments appear to recognise that risk by stating that nothing in the two new clauses affects the powers or duties of local authorities. However, as the primary responsibility is to continue to rest with the local authority, it is difficult to see why the functions of the proposed adviser need to be placed on a statutory basis.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister prayed in aid the role of the children's legal centre. He will know that it has advocated a guardianship system or a panel of advisers along the lines of the Brightman amendment.

Mr. Wardle: As I hope to demonstrate to the House, what we propose in the way of a panel of advisers will meet with the approval of the refugee legal centre and other interested parties.
The amendments envisage that the panel will include, so far as is practicable, persons who can speak the child's language, who are familiar with the habits and customs of the child's homeland and who have knowledge of child care legislation and immigration procedures.
We recognise that local authority social services departments may need help in some or several of those aspects, but the extent and nature of the help that is needed will vary from case to case. There may be cases in which the involvement of a person with specialised background knowledge of the child's own country and language is of help both to the child and to the social services, but there might equally be cases in which the local authority is able to meet that need from within its own resources, and the involvement of a separate adviser is unnecessary and might even be counter-productive.
4 pm
Moreover, unaccompanied children might arrive from anywhere in the world and it would not be possible to guarantee—indeed, it seems quite unlikely—that any statutory panel of advisers could provide for every child a person who had the relevant language skills and background knowledge. It is difficult to see how the appointment of an adviser without those qualifications would materially assist the child.
A statutory requirement for the appointment of an adviser for every unaccompanied asylum-seeking child therefore seems too rigid. What is needed is a system which can operate flexibly to provide appropriate response to the needs of each child, to fill gaps where they exist, and to avoid creating duplication of effort or confusion of responsibilities where gaps do not exist. There are existing


responsibilities covering all the needs of children in that position. Inevitably, different needs are covered by different services.
We believe that the crucial task is to ensure that those different services mesh together properly and that those providing the services have the support and specialised advice that they need. It is vital to mobilise and harness the potential sources of help within the various communities that are already here. We believe that those ends will be better achieved by supporting practical, non-statutory initiatives rather than by imposing a new statutory framework that might conflict with other statutory requirements.
The Home Office has agreed in principle to fund a non-statutory panel of advisers, which the Refugee Council has offered to establish and administer. The advisers would be volunteers from the communities from which most children could be expected to come, selected for their suitability for that role, and given the necessary training.
It is envisaged that, when an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child arrives in this country or comes to the notice of the Home Office when they are already in this country and applying, as some do, the immigration officer or the Home Office would notify both the appropriate social services department and the administrator of the new panel, who would offer the services of an adviser to the social services department wherever that was possible and desirable.
The function of the adviser would principally be to ensure that the social services department was aware of the child's wishes and of relevant cultural considerations and that the child understands as far as possible, taking his or her age into account, what is happening and what choices he or she has.
The agreement to fund the panel of advisers is necessarily for one year in the first instance, but that does not indicate any lack of commitment on the Government's part to the longer term view. Public expenditure decisions have to be taken on an annual basis. There is no way in which I can give the House a cast-iron guarantee of a specific level of support in future years, particularly in relation to a new commitment that has not featured in our earlier spending plans, but we certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable the concept of children's advisers to have a fair period of trial.
We believe that the scheme will—

Mr. Mike Watson: The Minister contradicted himself. I have been taking down some of the points that he has been making. He said, "Cost is not the issue." He has now gone on to say that he cannot give any forward cost commitments. What is the position? Is cost the issue or one of the issues?

Mr. Wardle: I have made it perfectly clear that cost is not the issue. I have explained that I am able to specify only what will be offerred in the first year. I cannot give any guarantees. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) understands how the Treasury functions, and he understands the rules in these matters. It is not possible for me, particularly with an entirely new operation such as this, to give detailed promises for future years. What I can do is to repeat what I have already said to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me, as he sought to intervene.
We certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable the concept of children's advisers to have a fair period of trial. That is what is most important. The scheme will provide a person to act as a friend and adviser. That will offer a better, more flexible way in which to meet the identified needs of some children than would a statutory scheme. The funding of the proposed Refugee Council panel of advisers is part of a package of Government proposals for supporting and strengthening the ability of existing services to deal with the needs of those children.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister appears to suggest that the Home Office will fund the Refugee Council's scheme during the first year. What would happen if a larger number of unaccompanied children than expected arrived? Would the council be expected to fund that excess by cutting other funding, or would the Home Office be prepared to increase its grant to enable the council to continue that scheme?

Mr. Wardle: We shall see as we go along. The purpose of the trial period is to match events with our experience. The Refugee Council will operate the panel and, together, we have considered the experience of recent years and the number of unaccompanied juvenile arrivals seeking asylum. We shall watch matters as they go and respond accordingly. We have told the council that we will provide the funding for the first year and then see how it goes.
I realise that time is pressing, and I should like to outline the other initiatives that we have taken. First, in the very near future, the Department of Health will issue to all local authority social services departments a practice guide entitled "Refugee and Asylum Seeking Children Alone in the United Kingdom". It will also issue a training package addressing the training needs of staff working with children outside their culture and families. That should raise awareness of those issues and help the development of the necessary expertise.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend will add to the immigration rules guidance on the treatment of asylum applications by children. I have already received constructive comments on a first draft of those rules on behalf of the Children's Legal Centre, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the British Refugee Council and the Save the Children Fund.
Thirdly, we will continue and will put on a more formal basis the arrangements by which the immigration service notifies social services of the arrival, or expected arrival, of groups of unaccompanied children. That will help to ensure that any danger of children falling between the responsibilities of the different services is minimised.
Fourthly, we propose to set up a more formal mechanism, also with that aim in mind, so that when an unaccompanied child is given temporary admission to the United Kingdom, all the relevant details of that child, his circumstances of arrival, links with the United Kingdom and so on will be passed to the social services department for the area in which he will stay, whether or not that child is already in the care of social services.
Fifthly, we recognise that it is desirable to resolve the immigration status of unaccompanied children as swiftly as possible, so that they and the authorities responsible for their care should not be left in doubt for any longer than


is absolutely necessary. We are therefore making arrangements to identify such cases and give them priority treatment within the asylum division.
Sixthly, on 3 February, my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary, announced his intention to provide a special grant to assist local authorities that face exceptional costs arising from the presence in their areas of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. The distribution of such children is inevitably uneven, with particular concentrations near the airports and in certain London boroughs. The new grant recognises those pressures and is further evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that the statutory services are able to respond effectively to the needs of those children.
Seventhly, the British Red Cross is compiling a register of unaccompanied children who come to this country to facilitate eventual reunion with their families, where possible. The Home Office and the Department of Health will co-operate fully with the Red Cross in the compilation of that register.
Those seven measures demonstrate our commitment to protect the interests of unaccompanied children and our concern to find sensible and workable ways in which to do that.
Amendment No. 12 appears to have been inserted in another place by mistake. It states:
Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge … on public funds".s
Such an amendment is usually inserted in Bills commencing in another place to avoid infringement of the privileges of this House. The Bill has financial implications which mainly arise from the administration of a new system of asylum appeals. Therefore, the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Graham Allen: As we discuss the Lords amendments, the House has its first chance to debate asylum in the light of events during the past few weeks. It gives us all, regardless of party, the opportunity to condemn the divisive and self-seeking speech of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) last weekend. I hope that the new Home Secretary has had the chance to reconsider the equivocal and slippery response that he made immediately after that speech and will now condemn it without qualification. As the debate progresses, he will have a chance to do so.
The rich vein of prejudice tapped by the hon. Member for Davyhulme in order to improve his chances of selection under the redrawn boundaries is strong and deep in the Conservative party. I hope that the Home Secretary finds the personal and political courage to confront and condemn that deep strain in his party.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend should give way to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Allen: I should be pleased to do so if the Home Secretary wished to intervene.
The Home Secretary joins the procession of faces whose leadership pretensions have meant that immigrants and even desperate asylum seekers have been viewed not as people but as political footballs to be kicked around in front of the Tory faithful. The previous Home Secretary sought to establish his credibility with the xenophobic

right by making life harder for anyone seeking a visitor visa, for students, mothers, the elderly and people coming to this country for marriage ceremonies, christenings or visits to relatives.
That was the tough vested interest taken on by the previous Home Secretary in immigration and asylum. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was another graduate from the smarm school and, aided by the tabloid newspapers, he conducted a scurrilous campaign to play the race card just before the last general election. We all expect that that card will be played again before the next one.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 provide a chance for a new leaf to be turned. I hope that the new Home Secretary will not fail that test, as he failed the test last week. I hope that the message is heard and understood by black and Asian communities up and down Britian. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 show the two-faced approach of Conservative policy—how easily the smile on the Conservative face which is displayed to settled communities in Britain quickly turns to a snarl when another audience is addressed. Perhaps there has never been a Home Secretary more suited to or practised in playing such a role.
A clear moral lead is necessary at this stage in the nation's history. Let us hope that the new Home Secretary provides that lead unequivocally and does not show the slipperiness that he displayed last weekend.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 show that nowhere are such short-term, hand-to-mouth policies more evident than in the very flawed Bill. We opposed the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and now even their Lordships have sought to leave an opening or two for the Conservatives to mitigate the Bill's worst defects. The Minister today rejected the statutory scheme to look after child asylum seekers and offered a voluntary non-statutory alternative. That is not good enough for the Opposition.
Perhaps we are being a little mistrustful—why should we not accept the Minister's assurances? Why should the assurances have to appear in the Bill? Why should we not trust the Conservative Government? Part of the answer lies in what the Conservatives have been cooking up with other Ministers in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said earlier, European immigration Ministers met in Copenhagen last week. No statements have been given to the House about that. Many of us thought that today's debate might be curtailed by a statement from the Minister about that Copenhagen meeting—

Mr. Charles Wardle: There is never a statement.

Mr. Allen: The Minister makes my point for me when he says, from a sedentary position, that there never is a statement. The whole European dimension of immigration and asylum policy takes place in secret: to use the Minister's words, there is never a statement.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but would he be good enough to tell me which Lords amendments he is speaking to at the moment?

Mr. Allen: I am making the point, Madam Speaker, that we need the assurances that the amendments seek on the face of the Bill. The amendments try to include in the


Bill certain clear statutory obligations, but the Government are trying to avoid such obligations by opposing the Lords amendments.
So, what was decided in the secret conclave last week? First, Ministers rejected an appeal from Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the right of family reunions—

Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Gentleman says in one breath that the Copenhagen deliberations were held in secret; in the next, he lists what happened there. I assume that he has seen the press release from the general secretariat of the Council which outlines all the decisions that were taken. He also knows full well that the usual practice since 1986 following such meetings has been that, in response to a written answer, details of decisions are given to the House and placed in the Library.

Mr. Allen: I hope that the Minister is not claiming that he has already given an answer to a written question and that Members should have seen it before this debate. They could not possibly have done so, as this is our first day back.
Hon. Members often mention to you, Madam Speaker, in points of order, that it is not satisfactory that the business of the Government should be reported in press releases or planted questions. When matters of policy and strategy are at stake, they should be reported to the House and statements on them should be made on the Floor of the House.
I was referring to the appeals from Mrs. Ogata in respect of the right of family reunion, which she suggested should be extended to the few thousand Bosnians given temporary admission to the EC. I understand from press reports—not from any communication from the Government—that EC Ministers agreed on guidelines for the admission of particularly vulnerable people from the former Yugoslavia. I understand that their recommendations were:
As far as possible, arrangements will be made for contacts to be maintained with close relatives"—
that is, with spouses and children.
In exceptional circumstances, in particular on humanitarian grounds, provisional permission to stay may be granted for this purpose".
The implication is that Bosnian victims of atrocities, many of them children, will not usually be allowed to bring their families to join them in the host country.
These restrictions on children come on top of the Government's appalling record of failing to meet even their own derisory quotas for Bosnian refugees. We were assured in November 1992 that 1,000 people and their dependants could be accepted to this country—a small contribution—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must call the hon. Gentleman to order again, because I fear that he is not relating what he is saying to the Lords amendments. This is not a general Second Reading debate. We are dealing with just three Lords amendments, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he says directly to them.

Mr. Allen: My point has to do with children being granted in the Bill a statutory right which is evident in the amendments—

Madam Speaker: Order. Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to which part of the amendments he is referring? I am reading them carefully even as he speaks, and he could help me by telling me which section of the amendments he is speaking to.

Mr. Allen: I am dealing with the amendments in their entirety.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking generally, but we are not on Second Reading. He must address specific points in the amendments.

Mr. Allen: The amendments refer to the statutory responsibilities that we hope will be placed on the Government. They relate to the dependants of many Bosnians who have not yet been allowed into the country. The Government promised that 1,000 people plus their dependants, many of whom are children and many of whom will be caught by the legislation, would be allowed in.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 must be incorporated in the Bill because, although we respect the Minister, assurances on this matter are not sufficient. I am afraid that, once again, I must query the Government's track record on assurances, especially in terms of the United Nations convention on the rights of children. The Government have entered reservations on that convention and many organisations and individuals have asked for them to be rescinded. Those reservations exempt the United Kingdom from implementing articles pertaining to immigration and nationality.
Those issues are relevant to the children who are currently separated from their families in the former Yugoslavia and they affect the implementation of several articles. Article 3 states:
In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
United Kingdom immigration law does not take any account of the welfare of children.
Article 2 provides that all the convention's rights apply to all children and not merely to those to whom the Government wish the rights to apply. Contrary to article 12 on a child's right to be heard, refugee children are treated like adults in the United Kingdom refugee determination process and are thus denied a proper opportunity to express their views and their wishes.
The Government's track record is one of the reasons why the Opposition wish to see these amendments in the Bill. The legislation must contain the responsibilities and the duties that we want to press the Government to carry out. If the amendments are accepted, they will ensure, for the first time in the United Kingdom, a realistic and comprehensive service for child asylum seekers. The adoption of that service would lead to a profound change from the way that the asylum services have operated since Britain signed the United Nations convention on refugees. We have an opportunity to put into law the principles that should govern our treatment of children as a distinct social group requiring specific attention.
Many people who come to our shores through the air and sea ports arrive full of fear, without friends, not speaking the language and with no one to look after them. They enter a wholly different culture. Many of them are traumatised by their experiences. Sadly, there are many examples that I could give the House, but I shall give one example of a person who would be assisted by the


amendments. Tamba, a 13-year-old girl from Eritrea, was put on a plane to the United Kingdom by her mother to save her life. The home of Tamba's grandparents, to which she had been sent for safety after she had been assaulted on three occasions by soldiers, had been bombed. The soldiers had threatened to return to her village to find her and, after the bombing of her grandparents' home, Tamba's mother felt that she had no choice but to send the child away.
I am sure that the Home Secretary and his Ministers will have to deal with many such heart-rending stories. I hope that they will bear in mind, in assessing Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2, that it would be of great assistance, not merely to such victims but to the organisations that seek to help them, to have in the Bill provisions to which we would have to adhere. That would enable us to test the Government's assurances and good will. We are not talking about an insignificant problem. In 1990, there were 128 children in that position. In 1992, there were 185. The latest statistic that we have, from a parliamentary question, shows that, to April 1993, there were 62 children.

Mr. Charles Wardle: indicated assent.

Mr. Allen: I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that.

Mr. Max Madden: If the reports are true, the British Government, together with other European Community Governments, have adopted a restrictive policy on family reunion. Does not what my hon. Friend has said show that, in months and years to come, as more unaccompanied children come to the United Kingdom, there will be a need for liberal policies on family reunion, rather than such harsh and restrictive policies? Is not it about time that the Minister intervened to tell us clearly what the British Government's policy is on family reunion and what harmonisation of those policies mean?

Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and will be glad to give way to the Minister, or to the Home Secretary, if he cares to answer that question. Sadly, given all the conflicts and political disruptions around the world, I am afraid that it is likely that the number of children caught in such conflicts is unlikely to diminish, and it may increase. It is particularly important that the rules, whether they are harsh or tough, are written in the Bill for all to see, rather than being subject to good will or assurances, which sadly, in too many cases in the past, have not been forthcoming when tested in the extreme under the Government.
Hitherto, we have treated child asylum seekers as adults. The UNHCR and the Children Act 1989 recognise that as a serious problem. The UNHCR, along with the British Refugee Council, Amnesty International and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants recognise and have argued that children such as Tamba and many others in similar positions should not be treated as adults by immigration officials.
In private, many immigration officials have accepted that they do not have social work or child care skills. They feel that the best that they can do is to pass those children on to voluntary and local authority organisations. However, despite the efforts that local authorities put in to

looking after those children, many cannot provide the assistance that they may need. There are no formal rules or a comprehensive plan that links social services departments with immigration officials.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the system for dealing with unaccompanied child refugees is a positive disincentive on any local authority to take on the responsibility for such children, as the authority knows that it will cost it a great deal of money, which it is not likely to get back from central Government—

Mr. Charles Wardle: Shame.

Mr. Corbyn: It is all very well for the Minister to say "Sr j 3–5hame", as he is not the one to have to take on that responsibility. His Government have consistently refused to fund inner-London local authorities, which have needed help to deal with those poor, unfortunate children. His Government cast those children on to the streets, not local authorities.

Mr. Allen: As so often happened in Committee, my hon. Friend has made the point that I was about to come to far more eloquently than I could. We need to ensure that local authorities—this is separate from the clause and I am conscious of the need not to go out of order—are properly funded in the duties that they undertake.
Adopting Lords amendments 1 and 2, which would establish a statutory children's panel, would help children through the complex procedure now being established in the Bill. The panel will be able to help children through the legal process and explore a better understanding of their needs. It will go some way to combining the 1989 United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act to ensure that children's rights are respected.
We have an opportunity to reflect the needs of the child in the refugee determination procedures, and we should take it. I call on the Government, even at this very late stage, to drop their opposition to a statutorily based children's panel.
4.30 pm
It is interesting to note that section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states:
When a court determines any question with respect to—(a) the upbringing of a child …
the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration.
In Committee, the Minister said that that Act did not extend to immigration hearings. However, child asylum seekers may have to go to the High Court or the Appeal Court for judicial review of their asylum claims. That is unacceptable to all those involved in immigration cases, except the Minister. He still has time to change his mind, accept that the child's interests should be paramount and accept the Lords amendments.
The children's panel will provide as comprehensive a service as it can, even on the proposed non-statutory basis. It will certainly provide considerably more than what is available at present. It will be able to meet children as soon as they arrive and assist them in their search for legal advice and proper care until their families are found or their future lives properly planned.
Wendy Ayotte of the Children's Legal Centre said:
Unless the government accepts some responsibility, how can it expect local authorities to provide anything more than the most basic needs of children who need a great deal of special help?


We are—if it needs to be stressed again—dealing with children with profound problems. Many of them are traumatised; many have lost parents or had a bloody separation from them in a foreign land. They are ill equipped to deal with the environment in which they find themselves.
We are all aware of the economic mess that the Government have created. However, for a very small amount of money a great deal of human misery could be alleviated if the Government do the job properly. We cannot any longer leave children solely dependent on local authorities for care. The Government must accept their share of what is an international responsibility. To date, Ministers have tended to leave us all in the dark. From the outset, they have not shown any support for the principle embodied in the Lords amendments, which makes us a little suspicious of their sudden conversion to a non-statutory scheme. In fact, their prevarication is one reason why the Bill has taken so long to come back before the House.
It is not sufficient to have a non-statutory scheme. In many cases the Government, through the Bill, have created the problems, so it is only right that they should support the solutions to those problems. I hope that they will support the Lords amendments and not opt for a non-statutory scheme. They should join Labour Members in supporting the proposals to aid those children—the most vulnerable individuals—as they seek asylum and refuge in our country.

Mr. Maclennan: This is the last appearance of the Bill before the House. It behoves us to recall that the substance of the Lords amendments were adumbrated a long time ago, even before the general election, when the previous Bill was before Parliament. It bears witness to the tenacity of purpose of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sought to ensure that the Government's Bill to tighten control over asylum seekers would not lead to a worsening of the administrative procedures for the handling of applications by children.
It is right to pay tribute to the work done in that respect before the Dissolution by Sir Philip Goodhart, then Conservative Member of Parliament for Beckenham who—along with many other Conservative Members—was quick to point out to the Government the need for special arrangements to ensure that the difficulties faced by children seeking to apply for asylum, which are certainly greater than those of adults, are taken into account by the Home Office.
The two amendments drafted and passed in another place reflect the consensus that was developing across the Committee that considered the Bill that it would be desirable to provide special representation for children, who are afflicted with difficulties in understanding procedures that, quite properly, must be operated quickly when children arrive in this country and seek asylum. I refer to their fear of officialdom, language problems, and the difficulty of not knowing who is speaking for them. It is fair to say that the Minister has understood those problems all along. The question is how best to resolve them.
It is proper to recognise the relatively limited scale of the administrative challenge posed by children seeking asylum. The problem has been greatly exaggerated— perhaps more so by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who introduced the original Bill, then

even his successor. However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, that was in a period when a general election was overhanging, and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley may have seen some advantage in whipping up concern.
In the event, the number of those seeking asylum in this country has proved to be far fewer than in other western European countries. Whereas events in Bosnia and eastern Europe in particular led to the Federal German Republic facing vastly increased numbers of asylum seekers—the figure runs into hundreds of thousands—the latest official figures available show that between last January and November, the United Kingdom admitted 23,390 asylum seekers, of whom a mere 129 were children. That reminds us that we are not dealing with a massive administrative problem, but that it would be unacceptable to sweep the matter aside because it affects relatively few people.

Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not conclude his remarks without making some reference to his party's view on the comments made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), particularly given the record of some of his colleagues in Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets. It may be useful to have something on the record from the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Maclennan: I am not one to rush into using consideration of detailed amendments concerning the rights of children to seek asylum to make a general statement about race relations and the comments of a Conservative Member. However, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in question to express my views in no uncertain terms and I shall be happy to provide the hon. Member for Nottingham, North with a copy of that letter. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that my views are no less robust than his own. However, at this stage I prefer to confine my remarks to the subject of children seeking asylum.
As the Minister knows, I am particularly interested in that aspect and I take this opportunity to thank him for the way in which he undertook in Committee to consider the proposal for the statutory provision of a panel along the lines followed by Lord Brightman in another place.
I also thank him for the courteous and thoughtful way in which he listened to the arguments that I deployed when I went to see him with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). From what he said on that occasion and earlier this afternoon, I have no doubt that he has put his mind
It is unfortunate that we are legislating for asylum in this manner. At the very last gasp of the Bill, the Government have announced seven administrative steps to ameliorate consideration of the issues; seven ways in which local authorities are reminded of their responsibilities and given guidance on how to handle them; seven ways in which the immigration rules are amended to take account of the handling of children's applications; and seven ways in which the formal mechanisms for handling temporary admissions by local authorities are to be handled. That kind of administrative response should have preceded the legislation, rather than coming after it. If the amendments had been in place, tried out and seen to work, it is conceivable that much of what the Government are now doing would not be necessary and that the vast amount of parliamentary time taken up by the Bill would have been saved.
Many of the problems involved in the managing of asylum seekers are of an administrative nature. At best, the Government's motive in bringing this legislation was to deal with the problem of backlog. Many believe that, given resources, new administrative priorities and the guidelines which have finally been extracted in respect of children, it would have eliminated, or greatly reduced and contained, the problem of asylum seeking—and wrongful asylum seeking—being confined as it was.
We are at the beginning of a new Home Office regime and—I suspect—a long way away from the next general election. I hope that party political considerations will prompt the Government less in matters concerning race and immigration than they have in the past. At the beginning of this new Administration, may I urge the Minister, as I would have said to the Home Secretary if he were still here—I was glad to see him here at the beginning of the debate—to look before he leaps, not to be rushed into legislation where it is not strictly required and not to seek to change the law on immigration and race just for the sake of a cheap headline and of ensuring that the most atavistic instincts of certain sections of our community are fed by the Home Office? That is not the way to advance good race relations.
I wish the Home Secretary well in his new job and I am glad that he came to the House for the opening of this debate; I understand that Cabinet Ministers are not usually able to sit throughout entire debates. I have known the Home Secretary for many, many years—even in his pre-legislative life as a lawyer—and I know that he takes a genuine interest in many of the matters for which he will have high political responsibility.
The crucial issue that we will have to decide when we vote tonight is whether what the Government propose for the handling of children's applications is sufficient. The Minister knows that I have strongly argued that a statutory scheme would have benefits. First, it would make it clear that there was a duty to be discharged by members of the panel and would give such a panel a status that would assist the other bodies with statutory responsibilities for handling such matters. It is inevitable that the immigration authorities, immigration officers, local authorities and social workers will continue to handle these cases.
I never believed that the setting up of an advisory panel to assist the children by acting as advocates should diminish the responsibilities of local authority officers and immigration officers; but the establishment of panels of experts would recognise that no local authority—or very few—could conceivably have the necessary range of linguistic expertise, or background knowledge of the circumstances which led a child to flee from a foreign country.
4.45 pm
I think that the Government recognise that such expertise cannot exist within a local authority. Some local authorities may have acquired this expertise—for example, those within the environs of an airport. If they have, so much the better, but it is possible that most local authorities will not have acquired such expertise and will value the help of the panels which would be set up under

the administrative arrangements that the Minister has proposed in place of the statutory arrangements approved in another place.
Only two issues of principle on the statutory scheme make it preferable. First, it gives some stability which, inevitably, an administrative scheme of the kind that the Minister has outlined cannot give. The Minister said that we should see how it works and then judge its effectiveness. It is right that we should do that. In time, it may come to seem so clearly a part of the system that the Minister may choose some other legislative opportunity to put it on a statutory basis. That sort of development is not unknown.
The second reason for ensuring that the scheme is on a statutory basis which still commends itself to me—and if the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) intends to press the matter to a Division, I shall support him—is the question of finance. If a statutory body is established, finance will be made available for it to discharge its statutory function. The Minister is right to say that he cannot give an undertaking about expenditure beyond the current year—we know that very well—but the best way in which to ensure that the necessary resources are forthcoming is to provide a statutory body which enjoys the backing of the full Government and which must therefore be funded. That seems to be a conclusive argument in favour of a statutory scheme.
I am grateful to the Refugee Council and the Children's Legal Centre for the helpful role that they have played throughout our debates. I have no doubt that they, particularly the Refugee Council, will be under financial pressure at some point as a result of the legislation. I hope, therefore, that their additional responsibilities will be reflected in additional funding.
I am glad that we have moved as far as we have down the road towards recognising the particular needs of children asylum seekers and that we are setting up a system of guidance, guardianship and advocacy, by administrative means, to take account of those needs. A modest change has been brought about by means of an immensely protracted debate, keenly fought in a number of different forums. That the battle has been at least partially won by those who are concerned about children asylum seekers is a cause for some satisfaction. If the Minister could bring himself to take that further step, I know that he would satisfy the whole House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whose sincerity in these matters is exceeded only by the length of his speeches, is naive if he believes for one moment that Conservative Members, particularly those who sit on the Treasury Bench, are motivated by anything other than party political considerations when they deal with asylum and immigration policy.
This squalid little Bill, the Lords amendments to which we are considering this afternoon, was born out of party political considerations. It is being considered at a time when party political considerations have precluded Conservative Members, particularly those who sit on the Treasury Bench and upon whom the responsibility lies, from condemning roundly the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for the appalling speech that he made only a few days ago. That speech, which received so much publicity, was disreputable and it did neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party any credit. It has poisoned the atmosphere of race relations in this country.
When one looks at the climate into which the children with whom these amendments are concerned will be arriving and at the climate into which they will be required to go when they attend school and attempt to lead some semblance of a normal life, after the trauma that led to their flight to this country in the first place, one realises that that trauma can only be increased by the hon. Gentleman's speech.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Davyhulme did not have the courtesy to be in his place this afternoon. He is only too well aware of the concern that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel about his utterances. He must be only too well aware of the fact that his speech will be referred to during the debate, Therefore, it is all the more reprehensible that he has not had the guts to come along and hear what is said.
Equally reprehensible is the Minister's silence. I know that he abhors, as strongly as any Opposition Member, the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Davyhulme. I do not for one moment call into question the Minister's sincerity and integrity in promoting good race relations. Therefore, I hope that he will come to the Dispatch Box soon and condemn his hon. Friend's speech. Both I and other Opposition Members—and, I know, Conservative Members—have been inundated with correspondence from constituents, particularly constituents from the Asian community who have been shocked, affronted and deeply hurt and wounded by the hon. Gentleman's speech and the Government's reticence in condemning it.

Mr. Madden: Although I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said, does he agree that the deafening silence of the Prime Minister, following the repugnant remarks of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), was deeply worrying? If the Prime Minister was truly shocked by what the hon. Gentleman said, would not a practical demonstration of that repugnance have been for the Conservative party to withdraw the Whip from the hon. Member for Davyhulme?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) continues his speech, may I remind him and the House that we are dealing with specific Lords amendments? This is neither the time nor the place to go into other matters. I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for those matters to be raised properly.

Mr. Boateng: I am sure that that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward tomorrow afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time to the Prime Minister taking the opportunity to denounce the hon. Member for Davyhulme—unless, of course, the Prime Minister is so preoccupied with his own parlous position that, once again, it slips his mind.
The amendments are welcome. I refer not only to the Lords amendments but to those that stand in the names of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are welcome, because they highlight the plight of children and young people as refugees, and also the plight of those caught up in the crisis in Yugoslavia.
My constituency experience, however, is that of unaccompanied child refugees from Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The Minister knows, because there has been correspondence between myself and his Department, as well as with the Department of the Environment on the issue, that we have in our schools the highest ratio of

children and young people from Somalia, whose very real needs have been met only as a result of considerable sacrifice and selflessness on the part of teachers, social workers and others in the London borough of Brent.
They have worked until now—it is still the case, although I am glad to hear that it will shortly be remedied —without any additional resources from central Government. It is therefore welcome that some resources, at any rate, are to be made available. One is anxious that they should come on tap as quickly as possible. We look forward to hearing from the Minister that this new money —and we want a guarantee that it will be new money—will be provided quickly and will be focused on the urgent needs of those young refugees.
The importance of the Lords amendment is that it seeks to put on a statutory basis that which the Government now say they are prepared to do, belatedly and under pressure, on a voluntary basis. It is important that it should be put on a statutory basis. It provides the clearest indication of the Government's commitment to this issue. It promises continuity and the stability of provision. It also ensures that the Government put their money where their mouth is. Without the provision of resources, it is difficult to believe that the Government's commitment will be worth the paper upon which it is written.
We are worried about how the voluntary scheme is to be established, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us. Will the Children's Legal Centre be fully involved and consulted? Will the British Refugee Council and other bodies working with children have additional resources to enable them better to do their job? What will be the mechanism for liaison between social services and those with specific responsibilities under the voluntary scheme?
5 Pm
My borough is not alone in finding that, after 6 pm, the police are the social services because of the constraint on local authority budgets. Refugees arrive at all times of the day and night. Those of us who represent boroughs adjacent to the main ports of entry know that there can be calls on the local authority social services departments literally at any time. Before we accept the Government's assurances, we want to hear more about how the voluntary scheme will work in practice.
This country's commitment under international law and under article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is clear. It is to ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration and that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies, those best interests are given the primacy of consideration that is their due. What better way to ensure that than by statute? It is not for nothing that the House of Lords passed the amendment. It recognised that the only way to ensure that the child's interests are paramount is to give the notion statutory backing.
We have a specific responsibility to children and young people. They are the most vulnerable sector of the refugee community. Their young lives are all too often shaped, twisted and distorted in ways that we can barely begin to imagine by the horror of their experiences in the countries from which they flee and by the trauma of their journey. We must ensure that on their arrival on these shores—they will already have had to overcome enormous barriers to


get here—they find a genuine sanctuary and refuge and that, for a while at least, they have at their disposal someone with a statutory duty to relate to them as a friend.
It is not without significance that amendment No. 2 deals, which deals with the appointment of functions of the advisory panel, refers specifically to the notion of "befriending" a young person. I have never seen that word used in any statutory provision but, when we are talking about children who have undergone such experiences, it is right to ensure that they have a statutory right to have someone as their friend who will stand up for them against what can often be a hostile, oppressive and alien bureaucracy. It is right that the friend should have the backing of statute. When we give the House the opportunity to vote on the amendment, I hope that hon. Members will uphold it.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I wish to associate myself with his remarks about the great anxiety caused to his constituents by the comments of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I know from my own experience in the past few days that the hon. Gentleman's remarks caused tremendous distress and anxiety to my constituents. The remarks were outrageous and reprehensible, and I am sad that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Prime Minister have not properly condemned them.
I was delighted when amendments 3 and 4 were made to the Bill in another place. Lord Brightman and Baroness Faithfull are to be congratulated on their hard work in building on our debates in Committee.
The benchmark of a civilised society is how we treat our children. An even greater standard is the way in which we treat other people's children, those who are fleeing traumatic and dangerous situations abroad. The provision of a statutory advisory panel, giving unaccompanied children who may have suffered bereavement, torture and travel to a country that they do not understand, access to an adult to advise and support them, would be progressive and humane.
It would help to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which emphasises that the child's best interests should be the primary consideration in any dealings that the state has with the child. The same principle is embodied in the Children Act 1989, which was so warmly welcomed by all parties. Therefore, given that the Government now appear to accept the principle and the difficulties that unaccompanied children face in such circumstances, it seems odd that they cannot put the provision on a statutory basis. If we have such statutory obligations to children, why not include this proposal in the Bill?
The advisory panel would provide support in dealing with local authority departments as well as immigration officials. It would certainly be in line with the well established practice in wardship cases of providing a guardian ad litem to young people.
The horrific experiences that befall refugees affect children as well as adults. We have recently seen many examples from the Bosnian conflict on our television screens. Amnesty International has documented some appalling cases in which children are, in their own right, victims of persecution and torture.
They are often threatened with torture and death by people who want to extract information from their parents. They may fear for their own lives because of civil war and attacks by repressive regimes. If parents are imprisoned, dead or missing, children must flee, helped by family and friends. Sometimes they must travel for long periods under hazardous conditions before reaching the United Kingdom.
Clearly, only exceptional circumstances would force children to undertake such dangerous and frightening journeys alone. What is the response when unaccompanied children manage to make that dangerous voyage? What faces them when they reach our country? When they come to Britain, they find that there is no special provision for them. Immigration officers, untrained in questioning children, interview them before deciding whether to grant them temporary admission. That interview is crucial to the determination of the child's case. If the child gets over that hurdle and is then given temporary admission, she or he is referred to a local authority which may not know anything about the child's refugee-related needs.
The British Refugee Council recently carried out a survey of the provision made by 17 local authorities, 16 of them London boroughs. It revealed that at least 25 children were held in detention by the immigration service on arrival and that 70 children had to wait up to three months before a local authority responded to their needs. At least 50 children were moved more than three times in their first three months in this country. That would be traumatic enough for any child, but for children who have encountered such dangers and who have had such experiences, how much more difficult and psychologically damaging must this trauma be?
Many children had no access to support from people of their own culture and language. It is not surprising that local authorities, however good their intentions, do not cope as well as they might with those children. Finding the necessary resources and expertise is yet another claim on overstretched budgets. Most individual authorities do not have the resources to sustain the breadth of expertise necessary to deal with the small number of children from a wide range of countries, cultures and languages. They need an advocate who would articulate their needs to ensure that they are met.
There are many examples of what happens to child refugees. The Refugee Council reported that a l5-year-old African refugee child formerly at a dedicated voluntary children's home was kept in Harmondsworth detention centre for a week following his arrival. He had no access to an interpreter for several days, and did not know where he was or why he was being kept there.
A boy of 15 from Zaire, who fled from civil war when his parents died, sought asylum at the port of entry. Immigration passed him on to the local authority social services department, which accommodated him overnight and referred him the next day to a refugee project as being a 16-year-old and therefore not in need. The project found him a place in a refugee hostel where he insisted—and he was believed—that he was 15. The local authority in the end acknowledged its wrong assessment and took him back. Those are just a couple of examples of the difficult situations that such children can face.
Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan), I offer my thanks to the Children's


Legal Centre, Save the Children and the British Refugee Council for the good advice that we have received during the passage of the Bill.
What is the experience elsewhere? The experience of other European countries is instructive. The children's legal centre recently introduced a report entitled "Children or Refugees? A survey of west European policies on unaccompanied refugee children". It shows that, in France, each section of the body that determines refugee status has a person mandated to assess children's applications. In Belgium, children's applications are given priority; in Denmark, an assessor is nominated. In Sweden, the world leader in the treatment of children, immigration officers who conduct asylum interviews have received special training in interviewing children.
I noted the Minister's opening remarks about some of the administrative changes that he now proposes to introduce. I welcome them. They are long overdue, and it is a shame that we had to wait until the other place debated the issue and introduced the new clauses before the Minister proposed the changes.
If the Minister has such confidence in the proposals, and if they meet with the approval of all parties, why not write them on the face of the Bill? If that is not done, the suspicion must be that they will be temporary and that, when the year runs out or when there are funding difficulties, they will disappear. Can we have some directness on the matter? We press the Minister further about his intentions.
We are not talking about a great number of children. In 1992, 185 unaccompanied child asylum seekers applied for asylum at their point of entry. The provision is necessary for a small number of children in exceptional circumstances, such as those in 1990 during the fighting in Eritrea. The panel of advocates would have only a small cost implication, and the value to the children would far outweigh any cost.
Article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides:
a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state".
After all those children have been through, they surely deserve no less.

Mr. Corbyn: I was a member of the Committees on both the Asylum Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. We twice tried to introduce the amendment that was subsequently carried in the Lords. It is before us today, and the Government are trying to wriggle out of it.

Mr. Charles Wardle: indicated dissent.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister indicates that he is not trying to wriggle out of it. If he is not, I am not entirely certain what his speech was about. Was he not trying to wriggle out of a statutory requirement to look after unaccompanied children when they seek asylum in this country?
The whole principle behind the demands that we made in both Committees was that unaccompanied children deserve special treatment, because they are refugees, because they are unaccompanied, because they are arriving in this country and because they are in danger of

falling through all the various nets that are supposed to be constructed to defend children in such a vulnerable situation.
It is not so long ago that a number of unaccompanied children arrived in London at the airport, left the airport, having been admitted to the country—nobody gave a thought to what was going to happen to them once they walked through the immigration channels at Heathrow —and, somehow or other, landed up on church steps in my constituency. To the credit of the priests at the church, they immediately took the children in, fed them, clothed them, housed them and looked after them.
Subsequently my local authority took responsibility for them. It did not say, "We cannot afford it. We will not do it. These are unaccompanied children who deserve our help and understanding." They were most terribly distressed children, who did not know why they had left their own country, did not understand what had happened there and did not understand a word of English. It was only with great difficulty that interpreters were found to help them. I pay tribute to all those voluntary agencies that helped.
The point that those agencies made to me time after time was that those children deserved better than the good fortune of landing on the right church steps, at the right place and at the right time, with a good samaritan helping them out. When the lesson from that is learned, it must be that there has to be a legally appointed guardian from the point of arrival to look after those children. What do the Government say? "No, we do not need anything like that; we do not need any statutory requirement whatever".
In Committee on the first Bill, the Minister's predecessor went as far as to question why the children were unaccompanied in the first place. I will tell him and the House why. When people are living in extreme danger —in a state of war, where they might be killed for their political, social or religious beliefs—the first consideration is the safety of their children.
Jewish families in Germany sent their children into exile in the 1930s. They did not know what would happen to their children, but they felt that there was better hope for them outside Nazi Germany than inside it. Many of the children sent into exile were looked after, but, tragically, many more were not and died as a result.
Tragically, children all around the world face situations similar to those faced by children in Nazi Germany. We should do better than to weasel our way out—as the Minister seeks to do—of a proposal that has been agreed by all the agencies and all those who have some understanding and experience, and return to some kind of voluntary scheme.
The reason we are going for a non-statutory, voluntary scheme is that the Government are not prepared to pay the cost of the statutory scheme in the long run. The Government know that there may well be considerable numbers of unaccompanied children arriving in this country in the future. The Government know that, I know that, and everyone who looks at the horrors that exist in so many parts of the world knows that.
Is the solution to close the doors on everyone seeking asylum, or is it to go for an humanitarian system of assisting unaccompanied children and giving them a place of safety and a safe haven in this country? It is to be hoped that those children can be reunited with their parents who may be able to come to this country at a later stage.
With all that is going on around the world, I would have thought that the Minister could have shown today that he does not agree with what the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said. The Minister could have stood up against the vile, xenophobic and racist nonsense spoken by the hon. Gentleman, and show a spark of humanity in respect of unaccompanied child refugees.
I believe strongly in the issue. We debated it many times in Committee. I do not doubt that the payroll vote will be wheeled out in a few minutes' time and the Lords amendments will be defeated, and we will return to some kind of voluntary scheme. That is not satisfactory, and we shall return to the question of guaranteeing real support, real friendship and real protection for victims of the most appalling brutality and terror that exists around the world today.

Miss Joan Lestor: In obedience to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not say much about the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), except to say that the debate is being conducted at a time when xenophobia has found a voice in many parts of Europe. It is most important that we should make it absolutely clear that we will take no part in the speaking of that language.
I want to feel that I live in a country where children who have been persecuted, who have seen their parents tortured and who have little hope in their own country receive a welcome. We should write into statute services that those children will most definitely need.
Reference has been made to several laws and conventions that would advance and enhance the position of such children—the 1951 United Nations convention, the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, and article 22 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so recently ratified by the United Kingdom, which states:
Refugee children should receive protection and humanitarian assistance in enjoying their rights under this convention.
Our own Children Act 1990 states that the interest of children must be paramount. Does that apply only to our own children? Should not the interests of children from other countries also be paramount? In making what is, I suppose, a concession to the tremendous force of the arguments used in the other place, the Minister is making a nod in the direction of that concept, without having the courage to write such a provision into statute.
When I was Front-Bench spokesman with responsibility for children, I went to Hillingdon and talked to people dealing with refugees coming in. I have met child refugees from all parts of the world. I have always been amazed and appalled that, when it comes to child refugees, other European countries can get it right but we cannot. Other European countries have made enormous strides in establishing proper procedures for dealing with child refugees. We are once again bottom of the league, while other countries have statutory procedures giving children an advocate and a friend to whom they can refer for advice.
I do not know whether the Minister has met many child refugees. Does he know what they have been through and what they have suffered? Does he know of their great fear of coming to a country where they do not know the

language? Many of them do not know what has happened to their parents, although they know that they may well be dead or that they are persecuted. Many parents put their children on a plane with someone merely to get them out of the country. Faced with the situation with which those parents are faced, we would all make such arrangements.
Such children have suffered enormously. They are traumatised and they need all the help that we can give them. But faced with those circumstances, what do we do? Immigration officers have the first bite. They are not trained to deal with child refugees. They have never received any training to help them to cope with children, but they decide whether children can be admitted and considered as applicants for asylum. I do not know how many children have been refused entry to this country.
When we do allow children in, we fingerprint them and treat them as criminals. When we have asked what is the justification for fingerprinting adult asylum seekers and seekers of refugee status, we have been told, "Fraudulent claims have been made for social security benefits." It is all in the Lords Hansard. But that does not apply to children. Before the last election, I asked specific questions about the number of child refugees who had been found guilty of fraud in relation to social security benefits. I was told that the answer was none. That being so, what is the rationale for fingerprinting children?
It is terribly frightening for a child to be fingerprinted. In most of the countries from which the children have come, fingerprinting is the prelude to torture and detention. Why do we have to fingerprint children? What is all that about? Surely we can look at that again.
As a civilised country, we ought to enshrine in statute certain services as of right. It would enhance the reputation of the Government, and of the Minister in particular, if the hon. Gentleman accepted the force of the arguments that were used in the other place, which were advanced from both sides of the House. For example, Baroness Faithfull, who is experienced in all questions of social work and who chairs the children's panel that many of us attend, made a moving speech in which she repeatedly drew attention to the bewilderment that child asylum seekers feel. We want to offer them some sort of security.
I read in today's edition of the Evening Standard that Somalian gunmen who attacked Pakistani troops used women and children as human shields to prevent the troops who were guarding a United Nations peacekeeping force at a feeding centre in Mogadishu from doing their job. Just imagine what children from such troubled parts of the world who end up here have been through.
There are not many of us left in the House who were evacuees within this country—and some went abroad—during the last war. We went only a few miles out of London and away from our homes—to escape the bombing and because our parents feared that this country would be invaded and wanted to make sure that we were safe.

Dr. John Reid: My hon. Friend is well known for her interest in children, and I had the honour to work with her for a while. Let me reinforce what she says about the trauma that such children undergo. Last week, I was in Azerbaijan and visited a number of refugee camps in which there were a considerable number of children. Those refugees are Azeris in Azerbaijan; they are in their own country and are being protected; they are not


starving. Yet the trauma among them is most evident. It must be a hundred times worse for a child to be a refugee in a strange country. I can verify absolutely from my own experience what my hon. Friend has said.

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. I was about to say that, as evacuees, we were in our own country and spoke the same language, albeit, perhaps, in different dialects. We knew a little of what was happening. We knew that our parents were alive, although we thought that they might be killed. The trauma will stay with those of us experienced evacuation as very small children for the rest of our lives. It was a terrifying experience. Imagine how much worse it is for children who come to a strange country whose language they do not speak, when they know that their parents are dead or are being tortured.
We are a civilised nation and are not poor—despite all the Government's efforts to make us into a poor country —yet we apparently cannot find the money to establish a statutory advice service for those children so that they can be assured of some service and can have some guarantee of protection.

Mr. Charles Wardle: When the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) refers to fingerprinting, I hope that she appreciates that many child asylum seekers, like other asylum seekers, apply for asylum without any means of identification. They have no documents. First and foremost, the process of fingerprinting is meant to establish an unshakeable identification. I respect the hon. Lady's work with children, and I entirely understand what she and other hon. Members have said in this debate about the traumatised state of many children who apply for asylum. However, as I explained earlier, we already have the provisions of the Children Act 1989.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that no account was taken of children in immigration law. However, he misses the point. Immigration law and the Geneva convention on refugees do not distinguish between applicants on the basis of age. So far as immigration is concerned, the same considerations apply. In all other respects with regard to children, the Children Act 1989 covers the welfare responsibilities as I have explained.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North began in his usual churlish fashion with some less than welcoming remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the new Home Secretary. To begin with, he found it a little difficult to remain in order in terms of this debate.
I want to respond to some of the remarks made about my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Those remarks, so far as I can see, have little to do with the Lords amendments that we are considering. If hon. Members listened to the radio or watched television last week, I hope that they will be aware of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I had to say about the matter.
I made it absolutely clear then, and repeat now, that I deplore any remarks which give rise to ethnic tensions. I took issue in the media last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme on two counts. The first was his assessment of the size and proportion of the ethnic population as a proportion of the entire population, and the second was his remarks about primary immigration.
Primary immigration ended years ago in this country. I will not enlarge upon that, because, if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would rule that I was straying out of order.
A constructive and healthy debate about immigration should be conducted regularly in the media and in this House.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wardle: No, I will not expand upon that.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to Bosnia. Again, he was straying a little out of order. He referred to the 1,000 ex-detainees and their dependants. He knows full well that the Government depend on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross for the number of people who have arrived so far.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—I do not like to think of a debate of this kind in which the hon. Member for Bradford, West does not intervene— referred to family reunion.
I should make it absolutely clear, and I hope not to stray too far out of order as this point related to children, that, in respect of the 1,000 Bosnian ex-detainees, some of whom have already arrived, and their dependants, reunion with their families is being carried out simultaneously where that is possible. For those ex-detainees who arrive outside the normal immigration rules and where someone is granted asylum refugee status, family reunion can follow straight away. Where someone is granted exceptional leave to remain, there is a four-year waiting period. If I were to dwell on that point, no doubt you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Madden: For the accuracy of the record, will the Minister confirm what he told me in his letter that I received today: that, to date, only 235 ex-detainees and only 387 dependants have been received in the United Kingdom? We are a very long way from the figure of 4,000 announced by the former Home Secretary last November.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a certain latitude, but I am not prepared to allow any more. The Minister, just like any other hon. Member, must now Consider the amendments.

Mr. Wardle: I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the advice offered by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in Committee and subsequently in the discussions that he and I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) about a children's advisory panel. I know of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm about the subject, and I am grateful for his good wishes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
However, perhaps the only difference on the matter between the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and me is whether there should be statutory responsibility for the panel. For the reasons that I made as clear as possible, it would be confusing to have statutory responsibility, because there are already clear-cut statutory responsibilities laid on local authority social services departments in that area.
The practical administrative measure which will deliver precisely the same service as the friend and adviser which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has


advocated throughout, and which Lord Brightman has advocated, will be delivered by the arrangements which are now in place.

Mr. Corbyn: If there is a clear statutory responsibility on local authority social services departments in respect of unaccompanied children, what is the Minister's Department prepared to do to reimburse them for the considerable costs of looking after deeply traumatised children for many years? Such children require a great deal of support, help and counselling.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I alluded to that earlier. Precisely how the extra funds announced by the Home Secretary on 3 February will be distributed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) volunteered that there were party political considerations afoot. I fear that he has not had an opportunity to read our debates in Committee, where he will have learnt of administrative measures designed to improve the service that is being offered. That is of fundamental importance.
I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Brent, South spoke briefly on Second Reading and asked about legal aid and funding for such advice. He also asked about the arrangements to which I referred earlier. He was concerned for the way in which the Refugee Council and others might operate.
As I said earlier, that is a matter for the Refugee Council which will organise and administer the scheme itself. It has specific Home Office funding for that purpose. The Refugee Council is well placed to work with other voluntary organisations which are active in the area. However, it will be for the Refugee Council to decide whom to consult and when.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Minister confirm that, although the Refugee Council has agreed to carry out that work, its stated preference was for a statutory agency?

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Dubs of the Refugee Council has made that point clear. As the House will be aware, I disagree with that point of view. I am sure that we will find that the Refugee Council will go to work with a will and will make the new panel of advisors work very well. We will be discussing with the Department of Health how best to draw the attention of local authorities to the new arrangements—probably through an addition to the new guidance that I mentioned earlier, which is in preparation.
The hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) outlined a number of case histories and described arrangements that were in place in other countries. I think that their suspicions are overdone. We are dealing with the treatment of child asylum seekers. This is not a matter of asylum procedures as such. It relates to the treatment of those children. I am absolutely confident that the new administrative measures in place—the new funding for the scheme that will be run by the Refugee Council—will serve the cause of child asylum seekers in this country suitably and well.
For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 226.

Division No. 286]
[5.40 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Faber, David


Ancram, Michael
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bates, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Batiste, Spencer

Garnier, Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Gillan, Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandreth, Gyles
Hanley, Jeremy


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Deva, Nirj Joseph
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark






Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lidington, David
Sackville, Tom


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Milligan, Stephen
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Redwood, John
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Timothy Wood.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Berry, Dr. Roger


Alton, David
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blair, Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Boyce, Jimmy


Austin-Walker, John
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)





Burden, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Callaghan, Jim
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jamieson, David


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Greville


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jowell, Tessa


Clelland, David
Keen, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Coffey, Ann
Khabra, Piara S.


Connarty, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter



Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbett, Robin
Leighton, Ron


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corston, Ms Jean
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cox, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
McAllion, John


Dafis, Cynog
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McFall, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McLeish, Henry


Denham, John
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mahon, Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mandelson, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Enright, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Etherington, Bill
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fisher, Mark
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Olner, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Gunnell, John
Pendry, Tom


Hall, Mike
Pickthall, Colin


Hanson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Pope, Greg


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Heppell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hinchliffe, David
Prescott, John


Hoey, Kate
Primarolo, Dawn


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Hoon, Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Rendel, David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara






Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooney, Terry
Tipping, Paddy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, Mike


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wright, Dr Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Strang, Dr. Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Jack
Mr. John Spellar and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Clause 3

FINGERPRINTING

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("an "authorised person", that is to say").

Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Wardle: The amendments to clause 3(2) are intended to make it clear that a child under 16 should be fingerprinted only in the presence of a person who is independent of the immigration authorities or the police and whose role it is to look after the interests of the child. The amendments provide for that individual to be the child's parent or guardian or a person who, for the time being, takes responsibility for that child. That would cover, for example, a local authority social worker, the child's legal representative, a relation other than a parent or guardian or a worker with a voluntary agency. The amendments make it clear that that person cannot be an immigration officer, another member of the Home Office or a police or prison officer.
I believe that the amendments meet the principal concern expressed in Committee in both Houses that the adult present should be seen to be independent of the authorities and responsible for looking after the child's interests.

Mr. Watson: The clause that provides for the fingerprinting of asylum seekers is one of the most objectionable in what Opposition Members consider to be a squalid Bill. It remains squalid despite the amendments that have been made in another place. It was of some consolation, but not much, that the clause was amended in two respects during its consideration in another place.
I was interested to note the clarification that the Minister offered about who might act as the adviser or friend to children who are asylum seekers. Although the Opposition welcome that clarification and the modest improvements that the amendments have made to the Bill, we do so not in the belief that they make the Bill acceptable, but that they represent the fulfilment of the

commitments argued for and given by the Minister in Committee. For that reason, we will not oppose the amendments, but that should not be taken as signifying that we are satisfied with the content of the clause. That is far from the truth.
Throughout the Bill's progress, the Opposition's objections have centred on the fact that the very act of being fingerprinted criminalises asylum seekers. We have consistently argued in Committee, and in the House today, against that practice.
It is a long-established principle, certainly in Britain, that the only people who can be required to have their fingerprints taken are those who have been charged with a criminal offence. When people hear that someone is to be fingerprinted, it is certainly their perception that that person has committed a criminal offence. The fingerprinting of asylum seekers is objectionable not only for adults, but for children. That is why we have consistently argued strongly for the protection that is offered under the amendments.
I am not aware that even the Government have suggested that an application for asylum should be regarded as a criminal offence. The much maligned—and rightly so—hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) would be happy to argue for that, however, should the Government decide to change their policy.
I am not seeking to make cheap points about the recent comments of that rather dishonourable Member. At this stage, he is an easy target, but we are entitled to know where he is today. Why has he failed to attend this debate so that he can discuss an issue that is, apparently, of great importance to him? If the matter is really so important to the hon. Gentleman, why is he not present? We must question his motives—he must have made the speech for his own gain. I tend to be a regular participant in such debates and I have not seen the hon. Gentleman participating, which makes his remarks all the more reprehensible.
6 pm
In Committee, my hon. Friends and I failed to convince the Under-Secretary of my objections to criminalising those who are fingerprinted, including children. Legislation already exists—sections 27 and 61 of the Police -and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971—to deal with cases in which it is believed that an asylum seeker may have committed a criminal offence. I am aware that we have covered that ground before, but it is important because all the arguments that we have advanced about the effect on adults of compulsory fingerprinting are multiplied several times in respect of children.
To fingerprint all asylum seekers, including children, makes an assumption of guilt. It assumes that everyone arrives at our shores with an ulterior motive—travelling under an alias, intent on making a bogus application and fraudulently claiming benefit. The underlying assumption is that no one is to be trusted and that, until they can prove their innocence, all asylum seekers are to be assumed guilty, at least in theory. Such a policy stands on its head what we have come to know as British justice—that one is innocent until proved guilty.
The Government have singularly failed to establish a convincing case for the need for blanket fingerprinting. We threw numbers at them in Committee and the Under-Secretary gave me some illuminating figures. He


said that the total number of cases being investigated then —November last year—was 1,600; 11 had led to convictions, 16 were being prosecuted and 170 suspected multi-applicants had been served with illegal entry papers. Those figures are small, and become comparatively smaller when placed against the total number of 24,000 asylum applications received in this country last year. The Government cannot use the scale of the problem to substantiate their argument for the need for blanket fingerprinting. If that is true in general, it is even more valid in terms of children.
Members of the Committee were given much information by a number of organisations which serviced us effectively. One of the most illuminating pieces of information came from the Children's Society. It recently produced a document called "Nowhere to Go", which quotes from interviews with families from Somalia and Eritrea who have sought asylum in this country. I shall read out one moving comment made by the asylum seekers. I shall quote verbatim, which will account for the grammar.
In a description of the experience of being fingerprinted on arrival and its effects, the interviewees said:
This is very disgraceful. Back home if you are a criminal then you put your fingerprint. But asylum seekers when we put our fingerprints on the paper and explain to the children we are putting the fingerprint. After some time when there is a picture on the television it is going to give the impression to the children…'My Mum she is wrong or my family are wrong. What did they do? It is something wrong'. So it's going to affect in terms of the mentality of the children. Because it shows on the television that if you do a crime you put your fingerprint and the children because of lack of knowledge of asylum seekers, they will think 'My father or my mum they are thieves'.
Those are the comments of people who have arrived in this country within the past year. I could give many more examples, but I do not have time to do so. The example that I have given underlines the way in which the people involved feel criminalised. Whether or not the Under-Secretary and his colleagues believe that the policy has a criminalising effect, those who are subjected to it, including children, believe that it does.
The way that fingerprinting affects children is the most serious aspect of the issue. It is a step further than the previous Bill on asylum was prepared to go, and it is certainly a step too far. In Committee, we charged the Under-Secretary with advocating a policy that would place the Government and the country in contravention of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
Article 37(a) states that no child shall be subjected to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
If children are subjected to forced fingerprinting when they have just arrived in a strange country, probably do not speak the language and have suffered the traumas of which we heard in detail earlier, that certainly amounts to degrading treatment. It might also be termed cruel and/or inhuman treatment depending on the state in which the child arrived in Britain—that would be determined according to the individual circumstances. The policy would contravene that convention, to which the Government, on behalf of the people of this country, are a signatory. They have a duty to uphold all its articles.
The right of a child to be accompanied while being fingerprinted is important, which is why we argued for it. But why should that provision be limited to children under 16? The answer is not clear, particularly as elsewhere, such as in clause 5(5)(a), the Bill refers to children as those

under 18. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain why 16 should be the age to apply to fingerprinting but 18 should be the age in relation to housing and other matters. It is not clear why that anomaly exists—it may he a drafting error, or there may be specific reasons. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will enlighten us.
It is not clear why any limits are set. In Committee, the Under-Secretary argued and, in another place, Earl Ferrers said on behalf of the Government that one reason why they were not prepared to accept any Opposition amendments about setting an age limit of 16, 14, 12, 10 or whatever was that one could never be sure of a child's age. If that is so—I do not accept that it is—why set an age limit of 16 for fingerprinting and an age limit of 18 for housing and other matters? If there are insuperable difficulties in ascertaining a person's age, we should be consistent and not set an age limit. I do not believe that it is impossible to ascertain someone's age, but my hon. Friends and I believe that fingerprinting people under the age of 18 is inappropriate and could be regarded as degrading and inhumane.
Section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 states that a child under 10 cannot be presumed guilty of any offence, so no proceedings can be brought. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act lays down rules for fingerprinting children. Therefore, there are double standards on both counts—children under 10 cannot be charged with any criminal offence, yet, under the fingerprinting provisions, they are to be treated as if they were criminals. There are certain rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and different ones in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
Double standards are always unacceptable. To introduce double standards—one for British citizens and one for citizens of other countries—is entirely unacceptable and inimical to the legislation that we should pass. The distinction is unacceptable under any circumstances and one of which the Government should be ashamed. Were it possible to shame or embarrass the Government into changing direction, that would have happened long ago, in respect of other legislation, not just the Bill.
I feel that the efforts that I and others of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) have made during the Bill's passage have highlighted to the Government the Bill's shortcomings and its pernicious nature. Its insidious denial of human rights and its inevitable criminalising effect on adults and children are not offset by the inclusion of the amendments.
The Bill has been opposed root and branch from start to finish. It has consistently been seen by Opposition Members as seeking simply to restrict the number of people coming into this country without any understanding of the position in which they find themselves. We have opposed it, and it does the Government no credit. Our opposition to the Bill as a whole is in no way reduced by the fact that we welcome the amendments.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) has eloquently described the background to the amendments. I simply wish to make it clear on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we regard the Government's modest concession—that children's fingerprints should be compulsorily taken only in the presence of their parents, guardians or those responsible for them when they are interviewed by


immigration officials—as an improvement. It is certainly unsatisfactory that it has taken so long to extract such a modest improvement to the Bill from the Government. I greatly regretted the fact that the Minister earlier appeared, rather insensitively, to regard compulsory fingerprinting of children as no more horrifying than when they are fingerprinted in a pleasure park at their own instigation. The two are quite different, as I am sure he will, on reflection, agree.
This is a modestly humanising measure. The amendments reflect the fallback position that we advocated in Committee. Many of us felt that it was wrong to fingerprint children under a certain age; but, as the Government are determined to persist, I believe that the amendments will help to remove some of the more frightening aspects of this physically intrusive compulsory fingerprinting of children.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 9

APPEALS FROM IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 7, line 21, at end insert:

("( ) In section 33(4) of the 1971 Act—

(a) for the words "in the case of an appeal to an adjudicator, the" there shall be substituted "an"; and
(b) after the words "section 20" there shall be inserted "or section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993".").

Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 7, Lords amendment No. 8 and amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 15.

Mr. Wardle: This group of amendments extends the new avenue of appeal created by clause 9 from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the immigration appeal tribunal. That should be generally welcomed. It means that the opportunities to seek leave to appeal on a point of law to the relevant court will be available in both asylum and other immigration cases. I should perhaps confirm that nothing in the clause removes the availability of judicial review.
It may be helpful if I briefly explain the effect of the various amendments. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 amend subsection (1), which creates the new avenue of appeal and removes the limitation to appeals in asylum cases. Amendment No. 8 specifies the appropriate court to deal with these cases. If the appeal was originally heard by an adjudicator in Scotland, the appropriate appeal court will be the Court of Session. In all other cases it will he the Court of Appeal.
Amendment No. 9 amends the 1971 Act so as to provide that an appeal shall continue to be treated as pending while an appeal may be or is being brought under this new provision. That will protect appellants from being required to leave the United Kingdom during that stage of the process.
As for amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 8, the appeal system that the Bill provides for asylum seekers and the appeal system which already exists under the 1971 Act for other immigration appeals already provide a two-stage appeal—first, to an adjudicator, then to the tribunal. The Bill adds a further right of appeal, with leave on a point of law, to the Court of Appeal. Lords amendment No. 8 extends that to all immigration appeals, not just asylum cases.
Amendment (a) seeks to add one more layer to the process, by having the appeal from the determination of the tribunal go to the High Court. Cases that involve important points of law would no doubt go from there to the Court of Appeal, so we would have a four-tier system of appeals. The aim of the Bill is to provide an effective way of resolving disputed points of law arising from immigration and asylum appeals without needing to resort to judicial review. It is not a mechanism for drawing out the appeals process as long as possible. The view of the Lord Chancellor is that it is better to allow the appeal to go direct to the Court of Appeal and so to keep delays to a minimum.
There is nothing new in providing an avenue of appeal direct from a tribunal to the Court of Appeal. In general, when a tribunal hears appeals from another body, as the immigration appeal tribunal does, the avenue of appeal is to the Court of Appeal. Examples of such tribunals are the social security commissioners, the employment appeal tribunal and the lands tribunal. An appeal usually lies to the High Court when the tribunal takes decisions at first instance.
Amendment (b) seems to be based on the belief that the purpose of providing the new avenue of appeal is to deprive people of the chance of judicial review; not so. It is true that until now the only way of challenging a decision of the tribunal has been by way of judicial review and that it will now be open to dissatisfied appellants to seek to challenge disputed points of law by the more appropriate remedy of an application for leave to appeal to the relevant court.
To the extent that that remedy is available, the use of judicial review to challenge tribunal determinations is likely to decrease; but when a person seeks judicial review, it is entirely up to the judges to decide whether there is an issue that comes within their jurisdiction or merits leave to move for judicial review. Nothing in the Bill removes the availability of judicial review, nor is that the Government's intention.
Lords amendment No. 15 is an amendment to the long title of the Bill designed to reflect the amendments that have been made during the passage of the Bill. In its original form the long title states that the Bill restricts certain rights of appeal under the 1971 Act. We are now also extending the new avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal to all determinations by the tribunal under the 1971 Act, and the new wording more accurately reflects the contents of the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us something about the amendments, and especially about judicial review. These amendments were slipped into the Bill late and with virtually no debate in another place. We therefore did not have the benefit of a detailed explanation.
Our fear is that the amendments are more far-reaching and fundamental than their description in the other place would suggest—they were described as simply an extension of the right of appeal. Our fear remains that the facility of judicial review may in practice be limited by the amendments—in short, that there is a hidden agenda.
When the Bill left the Commons it included an appeal direct to the Court of Appeal in special ajudicator cases —that is to say, cases involving asylum. All other matters were still subject to review and appeal by way of judicial review. We were not happy with the Bill when it left here because we thought that the Court of Appeal pitched the process at the wrong level: it made appeals more extensive and complicated and it meant that cases were sent to a court that is already overworked and short of judges.
In another place and without debate, the arrangement intended for asylum cases was extended to cover all appeals, involving business people, wives, dependants, students and so on. The amendment, which look innocuous enough, may disguise a hidden agenda and reduce the possibilities of judicial review.
The divisional court applies two principles, among others, when it considers giving leave for judicial review. The first concerns whether an application is made within three months of the decision in question. Secondly, the divisional court tends to consider whether there is an existing right of appeal. It tends to refuse leave for judicial review when another avenue is open to someone—for instance, when a case comes before an adjudicator and there is a possibility of appealing to the immigration appeal tribunal, or when an immigration officer has made a decision and there is an appeal to an adjudicator.
In such cases, the divisional court tends to say that the matter is not appropriate for judicial review because other avenues are open. Even if the Government do not intend it, we are concerned that the effect of the amendments may be to cut out these avenues. Hence, to deal with a question of administrative law or impropriety, someone will have to canvass the issues before an adjudicator or the immigration appeal tribunal, but will be able to question them only when they get to the Court of Appeal
I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have one question for the Minister which I shall preface with a preamble. The Bill incorporates the United Nations convention on the status of refugees, and the Government are a signatory to the European convention on human rights. In a new development, the European convention is expressly recited and adhered to in the Maastricht treaty, which the Government shortly propose to sign. My question is important whether appeals go to the Court of Appeal or to judicial review. Do the Government intend our courts to take direct cognisance of the European convention on human rights in deciding the validity of immigration rules, immigration appeal rules and the procedures before immigration appeal authorities?
Secondly, are the Government prepared to have ministerial decisions tested against the human rights criteria? The Government signed the human rights convention and are about to sign another treaty which expressly incorporates the European convention on human rights. Are they prepared to allow our domestic courts, whether the Court of Appeal or a judicial review body, to test what Ministers do and to test immigration rules and appeal rules against those criteria? If they are

prepared to do that, how can the convention be applied if, in practice, judicial review is excluded because of the other appeal rights?
If the Minister is absolutely satisfied that there will be no interference whatever in the capacity to opt for judicial review at any stage of the proceedings, I shall be happy to agree to the amendments. However, if there is any risk in practice, whether or not it is a matter of law, or judicial review being curtailed, we would feel unhappy about the amendments.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hidden agenda. The fact that the European convention on human rights is mentioned in the Maastricht treaty will have no relevance to decisions by British courts on the matters that the hon. Gentleman outlined.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 10

VISITORS, SHORT-TERM AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 7, line 35, at end insert:

("(3AA) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is, by virtue of subsection (3A) above, no right of appeal; and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."").—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out from "appoint" to "monitor" in line 3 and insert,
the Commission for Racial Equality (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission")".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss amendments (b) to (g) to the Lords amendment, plus Government amendment (j) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendment No. 11.

Mr. Allen: The Conservatives are in a terrible mess and that would normally give some pleasure to the Opposition. However, when the Conservatives make a mess they are not the people who suffer, but people outside. When they are incompetent on the economy, my constituents lose jobs or businesses, and when the Government stupidly introduce a daft experiment to pay pensions into bank accounts, it is pensioners who become isolated while postmasters go bust.
When the Home Secretary needed to impress his Back Benchers, he bolted an anti-immigration clause on to what is essentially an asylum Bill. The relatives and friends of black and Asian British people will thus find that, virtually alone in our legal system, they will be denied the right to appeal against the wrongful denial of a visitor's visa. Last year, 3,845 such wrongful decisions were overturned because people had the right to appeal. That is the only reason for those decisions being changed. It was not because of any magnanimity by the Minister or the Home Secretary. The right of appeal has been abolished, and if those 3,845 people are wrongfully denied right of access to


this country, they will have no redress. By abolishing the right of appeal the Government are acquiescing to the continuation of wrongful decisions.
The Government need to play to several audiences and the amendments and proceedings in the Lords and elsewhere are an elaborate pantomime to try to convince the ethnic minority British that the proposals to abolish the right of appeal will not hurt them. A package of transparent concessions was offered in Committee, but it was laughed out of court. It was tragic and almost amusing to watch the Minister as he pretended to be dragged into making concessions to his Back Benchers, most of whom spent their time in Committee studying their correspondence and other papers. Suddenly they sprang to life to gain marvellous concessions which nobody believes have any substance.
Having failed to carry the day with those, the Government are now offering monitoring in place of a right of appeal. But not each case or each refusal of a visa will be monitored, nor can monitoring be initiated by someone who has been denied a visa. A minute and random sample will be monitored, the exercise will be unknown to the applicant and there will be no possible redress for errors. I hope that no one in any minority community in Great Britain will be gullible enough to be bought off by such flimsy and obvious manoeuvring. When the Tory begging bowl is passed around in the Asian business community, I hope that it will be greeted with the question, "How did you vote about the right of appeal being abolished for visitors?"
The Government have attempted to wangle their way out of the problem by promoting what they would term a friendly amendment in the Lords. It is worth considering why the amendment was proposed. The Government argued that there is an overwhelming need to end the appeal system, which we have had for 21 years and under which people have applied for visitor or student visas. In Committee, the Minister claimed that clause 12, which abolishes the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance as visitors, students intending to study for less than six months, proposed students and their dependants, is necessary to prevent the immigration appeal system from getting clogged up and thus preventing genuine appeal cases from being heard. The Opposition have never accepted that argument and its policy implications.
6.30 pm
Lords amendment No. 10 proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint an individual to oversee and review
in such a manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is … no right of appeal".
Furthermore, the appointed person
shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.
I have a number of criticisms of the role, responsibilities and powers of the appointed person. The proposal is a weak attempt by the Government to cover up the injustice that they will serve on many people in the United Kingdom and their relatives abroad by abolishing the right of appeal.

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend may or may not know that for some time I represented

appellants almost on a daily basis. I believe that I was the person involved in the very first appeal, which was heard in July 1970, so our system has been in existence for almost 23 years.
What is wrong is not merely that the right of appeal is being abolished. As my hon. Friend said, that right allowed the tribunal to find that the decisions taken by adjudicators in a number of cases were wrong. Is he aware that, when the entry clearance officer is deciding whether to accept or reject an application, he will bear in mind the fact that he will have to justify the decision if an appeal is lodged? He will have to write an explanatory statement, which will go before an adjudicator in the event of an appeal.
Once the right of appeal is removed, the entry clearance officer will have no fear of what may happen as a result of his decision, because it will not be possible to challenge his decision in any meaningful way.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend brings all his experience to bear in pinpointing that important matter. The problem is not merely that decisions in a large number of applications have been rejected and overturned on appeal, but that the checking mechanism of the appeal system, which provides a stimulus to entry clearance officers to get the decision right in the first place, will be removed. The figures on that do not appear in any statistics, because that threat of appeal if people get the decision wrong exists only as an internal policing role.
Of the 13,882 people who appealed on refusal of entry clearance abroad, 3,845 had their appeals allowed. It is outrageous that the Government are prepared to see that those who are initially wrongfully refused entry to the United Kingdom can be left with no recourse to any further consideration of their cases. The Government's proposal of a monitor is inadequate for the appeals procedure. However, we are aware that the monitoring process will be steamrollered through in the normal manner this evening, so it is incumbent on us to make efforts to strengthen the monitoring process, as well as criticising the reason why we need that process—the abolition of the right of appeal.
Our amendments set out proposals to give teeth to the monitor. Initially, they are aimed at ensuring greater independence for the monitor from the Secretary of State. To start with, how independent can a monitor be if he is appointed by the Secretary of State? Our amendment would ensure that the monitor is appointed by the Commission for Racial Equality. The appointee would then have a truly independent role and he would not have his role of independent scrutineer determined by the Secretary of State.
The CRE appointee would determine which cases he investigated and would have access to the files necessary for a proper investigation of refused cases. We believe that the CRE would be the appropriate organisation to appoint the monitor and such an arrangement would ensure that the body that has experience in monitoring the actions of immigration authorities would be able to oversee the workings of the entry clearance system. Its record, and the work that it has done, speak for themselves. It would bring an element of independence to the process, thereby ensuring that all communities could have faith that the process was working on an impartial basis.
That raises the question of adequate resources. The monitor that the CRE chooses must have a properly staffed and resourced office. It is not clear whether the


Secretary of State's appointee will have the adequate secretarial or administrative back-up that a monitor must have if he is to be effective. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he will have that.
The number of cases that a one-man or one-woman operation could monitor would be minuscule. With one person attempting to dip into the various files and reviews, only a tiny number of cases would be reviewed. Even with this unambitious proposal of monitoring, we should set a target of at least 10 per cent. of refusals being examined by the monitor and his staff. Anything less would render the exercise even more transparently an exercise in camouflage of the abolition of the right of appeal than it is already.
In carrying out his responsibilities, the monitor should, if necessary, be allowed to call witnesses before him to enable him to determine the reasons for refusal of entry clearances. He should have the power to refer any such refusal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. If he is to be effective, it is essential that the monitor is able to contact those who are refused as individuals and get full access to the notes and files.
The Minister has promised that people will be sent a more detailed refusal letter, but it is not quite clear how detailed that refusal letter will be. There may be notes of an interview between the entry clearance officer and the refused visitor, as referrred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Those notes will be set out from the entry clearance officer's point of view, and it seems unlikely that any documents presented to him will be kept. There will be no explanatory statement setting out his thought processes and, more importantly, nothing from the visitor's point of view.
In appeals that succeed, the visitor can usually explain misunderstandings or misinterpretations in the first interview or even give a more full explanation than that recorded by the entry clearance officer. However, as the Bill stands, that information will not be available to the monitor, so his decision will be given after only a cursory examination of some of the papers. We could not readily accept that. Even if, on the information available, the monitor believes that a decision is wrong, there will be no redress for the individual visitor. He will not even know that his case has been reviewed and he will not be informed of the outcome or told that entry clearance will be granted in future. Because he will not know about any review, he cannot make any representations.
If, magically, on that brief random sample the monitor decides that injustice has been done, there will be no way of redressing it. We are not talking about an odd problem or two—last year almost 4,000 individuals won their appeals. This year, people will not even know whether their cases are being reviewed. The Government's proposals will simply perpetuate injustices unless adequate information and access are provided. Indeed, the very fact that an inadequate monitoring system exists may make the position worse. The courts may feel that due process has been gone through, which will undermine the concept of judicial review. The monitor's report, especially if it is favourable, could be used to support any suggestion that decisions are generally fair. That will make it even harder for individual visitors to contest unjust refusals.
It is worth repeating that currently 20 per cent. of refusals are found to be in error on appeal. I make no apology for repeating the analogy that I used some time ago on Second Reading—imagine what would happen if there was a 20 per cent. error rate in other areas of the civil

service, perhaps in the income tax returns of hon. Members or their constituents, or perhaps in social security claims. It would be absolutely intolerable.
The very fact that the scale of the problem has been highlighted is due to the appeals system. People can appeal, and we can find out what mistakes have been made. That will no longer be available and the monitor will not be able to overturn even the most blatantly wrong decisions. I hope that the House agrees that that is neither acceptable nor just.
Our amendments would ensure that the monitor reports to the House not once a year, as the Government propose, but monthly. That may appear to be a heavy burden, but as the monitor will have very few powers the least that we should do is to ensure that he regularly alerts the House to the high number of applications being wrongfully refused. Hon. Members can then debate the issue in the House. Of course, this is not really the place where appeals against wrongful refusal should be heard, but if it is all that is available, hon. Members should have the necessary information provided monthly. I repeat that we are talking not about the odd case, but about at least 4,000 cases a year. There would certainly be enough cases to keep hon. Members chewing over the monitor's report each month. We need to scrutinise the system as thoroughly as possible.
The amendments would broaden the scope of the monitor's investigations, which is crucial to improving his proposed role. He should investigate refusals of entry and refusals of entry clearance. We want the monitor to review and investigate the rejection of both and the latter is included in Lord's amendment No. 10. Refusals of leave to enter at airports and ports, or any refusals of students or prospective students, would not then be excluded, as they currently are, from the monitor's remit.
We are conscious of the need to give the monitor teeth. We have realised for some time that the Government's intention behind this proposal is merely to give some respectability to the withdrawal of the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance. We give the right of appeal to a common murderer, but not to a mother seeking to enter this country to be present at, for example, a family funeral, christening or other religious ceremony. In the Government's view, they are not worthy of retaining the right of appeal.
6.45 pm
The plan to conceal the abolition of the right of appeal has not worked. I call upon the Government to accept the amendments and give the monitor some genuine powers and a genuine role. If the Government do not do that, they stand accused and condemned of just carrying out a public relations exercise to limit the political damage that they have inflicted not just on themselves, but on many of our innocent fellow citizens, by abolishing the right of appeal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I must inform the House that amendment No. 10 involves privilege.

Mr. Corbyn: Over the years, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with individual cases of immigration law and refusals of entry clearance. It takes up an incredible amount of the time of any hon. Member representing a constituency, as I do, which has people from all parts of the world. I shall not go into great detail,


but I can tell the House of the horror and misery caused to those families who cannot be reunited because of the bureaucracy of our immigration rules.
It is fundamentally wrong that our immigration laws should be the opposite of all other presumptions of law. The presumption of guilt is on the individual, there is a lack of right of appeal, a lack of natural justice in dealing with the case and the Secretary of State is judge, jury gaoler, executioner and deportation officer. He has total power over the lives of a large number of people.
The history of the clause with which we are dealing lies in the way that good and expert immigration lawyers have, over the years, consistently challenged the nonsense of the operation of existing immigration law. They have had a number of successful judicial review cases and have also taken cases to the European Court. The Government are attempting to raise the threshold for judicial review in an attempt to evade any accountability for the decisions made by entry clearance officers. Although the Lords amendments do not go anything like as far as I would wish, at least they provide the basis for monitoring and examining what is happening. That has to be a slight improvement on what the Government initially wanted.
We must deal with a number of issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those seeking entry clearance currently have a right of appeal if the decision goes against them. The appeal is heard and a decision made, albeit often in unfortunate circumstances because frequently those people have already been removed from this country and have lost their ability to return. I understand that in one year, one third of all the cases appealed are successful—yet the Secretary of State wants to remove that right of appeal.
The proceedings in Committee were farcical. It was obvious that Afro-Caribbean and Asian families resident in this country were concerned and angry at the prospect of visitors being unable to come here for happy family events such as birthdays, weddings or the birth of a child, or for sad family events such as funerals. They were alarmed by the prospects of the removal of the right of appeal and the unfettered power that that would give to officers in British missions overseas.
In an attempt to get out of that mess, the Secretary of State contacted the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who willingly went along with the nonsense of allowing a second application rather than a proper right of appeal. Presumably the hon. Gentleman presented that as some kind of victory and indication of his parliamentary skills, but the opposite is true. It made an appalling situation even worse. It was a travesty of justice in the first place, and it makes a total mockery of sense of justice to allow a second bite of the cherry if one can afford to pay for it. It is time that was made clear and put on the record.
As to the right of those from Somalia to enter the country at this time, I have been contacted by solicitors representing a number of Somali citizens who seek family reunion. As the Minister knows, if a family gains full asylum status in this country, family reunion is automatic. Increasingly, the Department is both to grant asylum to anyone. I am not sure of the process through which one must go to persuade the Home Office that one is worthy of asylum.
Instead, the Home Office grants the lesser right of exceptional leave to remain, which means a four-year delay until such time as the application for family reunion can be considered. That is a long time in the life of a child, and is totally unjustified and unfair if the Minister knows all along that the Home Office will have to grant entry to the rest of the family at some time, so that it can be reunited.
Persons who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the country must pay the usual visa fees, which can be as much as £60 per person. Those fees are waived in respect of relatives of refugees but not of those given exceptional leave to enter. I do not understand why those persons must pay when they are granted the right of residence in this country for virtually the same reasons as relatives of refugees.
It is time that the Government understood the deep anguish felt by many in this country at the way in which their relatives and friends are treated when they merely try to visit. In Committee, we warned of the implications—of the unpleasantness, and of the total lack of accountability in respect of the work done by entry clearance officers in British missions abroad.
The basic tenet of Government in a democratic society is that official decisions can be challenged at some stage. The only way that an individual can now challenge the decisions of individual immigration officers at British missions abroad or in this country is to contact a Member of Parliament. That Member of Parliament can contact a Minister, and if he does not give a satisfactory answer, the Member of Parliament can try to raise the matter in the House. That is not satisfactory, and there ought to be normal, basic rights of appeal—as there are in every other area of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is attempting to improve proposals that he admits are not anyway very satisfactory. The suggestion is that just one individual will serve as a monitor. As just one constituency Member of Parliament, I cannot monitor in detail all the problems that are brought to me—and I am sure that I speak for other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard. How on earth will one individual be able adequately to monitor the situation on behalf of the Government?
The Minister has the largest private office in the whole of Whitehall, and the biggest budget. He has also the largest staff and the biggest volume of individual casework. That is because immigration law has been concocted in such a curious way. We need in its place real rights of appeal, real rights of accountability, and real rights for those who seek family reunion or who want legitimately to join relatives in this country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North rightly pointed out, there is need also for an independent basis for the monitor. I am not happy with the idea of the Secretary of State appointing a monitor to monitor himself. I can imagine who the Secretary of State might appoint to sit at the desk in the corner of his office, whom he can tell how to monitor the work. Monthly, not annual, reports are needed, as is some form of appeal other than an appeal to the very same Secretary of State who made the original decision or on whose behalf the decision was made.
The issue will not go away. Every few years, the Government try some new means of removing the rights of those who want to join their families, friends and relatives


in this country. We have seen various changes to immigration rules, and the curtailment of the rights of Members of Parliament and of access to judicial review and the European Court. There is now to be a lack of any form of appeal against decisions. When a totally erroneous and ludicrous decision is made, I am sure that a way will be found to have the case made the subject of judicial review—and then we shall be back on the merry-go-round. It is time to review the issue in the light of justice, equality and fair play, rather than make those affected suffer bureaucratic horrors and misery.
The losers in that bureaucratic merry-go-round are the families separated by thousands of miles of sea and mountains of paperwork, and the growing children who are unable to remain with their parents, as they should rightfully do—to live happily and harmoniously. They cannot do so because of the way in which immigration law operates.

Mr. Greville Janner: I share he views so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) but take them further. My hon. Friend said that the Government will find some way to get around ludicrous decisions, but that will not be possible. Where a ludicrous decision is made, the sufferer will be returned to wherever he or she came from, and then it will be too late to do anything. That is the basic problem of monitoring as opposed to the right of appeal.
The abolition of that right is a monstrous act for a decent country to perform. I declare a certain personal interest, in that all four of my grandparents came to this country at the end of the last century to seek asylum—whether by that term or otherwise—from the vicious miseries then imposed on Jewish people by the Tsar and his armies. As I listened to the debate, I wondered whether my grandparents would even have gained entry to this country on the terms now proposed.
If they had not done so because some official had exercised his or her power, my grandparents would have boarded another ship; if they had the money to do so—or would have been put on another ship. Neither my revered father or I would have had the proud privilege of serving the House, whether as a Member of Parliament or as an official, or in any other capacity.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we are debating the abolition of appeal against the refusal of visit visas and mandatory refusals of entry clearance. That has nothing to do with asylum applications or with appeals against the refusal of settlement applications.

Mr. Janner: The whole system of appeals should apply to everyone. My constituents complain that a relative is not allowed entry to attend a funeral—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is one thing but, as a lawyer, he will appreciate that the amendments are fairly tightly drawn. The hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks should remain within the bounds of the Lords amendments under consideration.

Mr. Janner: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was only responding to the Minister's intervention. I will direct my remarks with pleasure at

clause 10, point by point—and then there can be no allegation that I am straying one inch from the path of legal propriety. Amendment No. 10 to clause 10 states:
The Secretary of State shall appoint a person".
Why should the Secretary of State appoint the monitor? Why should the individual who is to be monitored decide who is to do the monitoring? Even with our system of appointment to Select Committees, one of which I am privileged to chair, it is not the relevant Department or Minister being monitored that appoints the members of that Committee but the Whips. They may make mistakes —for example, no woman serves on the Employment Committee. However, at least the members of Select Committees cannot be accused of being appointed by the Minister.
The Secretary of State is to appoint "a person"—one person to monitor thousands of applications. That will provide thousands of opportunities to do people harm and injustice. That person will not be "an officer of his". What good news. Thank heaven for small mercies. At least the Home Office will not be landed with a responsibility that I am sure its officials would not welcome.
7 pm
The person appointed will monitor refusals not in accordance with the interests of natural justice, but
in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine
The Secretary of State will not only appoint the monitor, but decide the way in which that monitor will do his duty. What a travesty. The person to be put on trial will appoint the judge; there will be no jury; and the same person will decide the way in which the tribunal is to proceed. This is not justice, but a cover-up—an attempt to make people think that justice will be available. It is not a way of ensuring that those who come to this country have rights; it constitutes an assurance that no such rights will exist.
The Lords amendment states:
The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance".
Following such a refusal, the applicant must return to his own country, because he will have no right of appeal. The refusal will then be monitored.

Mr. Charles Wardle: That is right.

Mr. Janner: But how is the monitoring to be carried out? I wonder whether the Minister has ever stood beside such people and watched the way in which they work. Of course, there are good ones and bad ones.

Mr. Wardle: Yes.

Mr. Janner: No doubt the Minister has observed such people since taking his present post. Of course, they would not have known who he was; they would have carried out their work in the ordinary way, because the Minister would have appeared incognito.
Can the Minister imagine what it would be like to be a relative of one of my constituents, coming over from India to attend a wedding, and to be told, "Goodbye—out you go. One day, someone will monitor the refusal of your application, and make a report a year later. Her Majesty's Government will consider the report—in such manner as they will determine—and then decide how to deal with it. Eventually, it will be laid before the House." Of course, the Government will have a big enough majority to ram through anything they like, just as they will be able to ram


through this rubbish tonight—unless there are enough by-elections to change things: that cannot happen soon enough for me.
Refusals will be monitored only when there is no right of appeal,
and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions".
What does that actually mean? The report need not be made at the end of the year; it can be made six months later, by which time everyone who has been refused entry and has gone home will probably be dead. As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead: certainly, the amendment is a dead measure which will breathe no life into this corpse of a Bill.

Mr. Allen: My hon. and learned Friend is being characteristically generous—even to the Government—in assuming that each refusal will be monitored. Unfortunately, that will not happen; a random selection will be made. Only a handful will be examined, and those whose cases are monitored will be extremely lucky. Who knows what will happen then? No action need arise.

Mr. Janner: If I was trying to be generous, I covered it up as best I could. I certainly was not suggesting that every case would be considered. That cannot happen: cases will be monitored
in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has pointed out, the manner in which they are monitored will depend on the staff allotted to the one person who is to act as supreme monitor of the public school machinery that is being installed to determine who is allowed into the country.
What will happen to the report? The Secretary of State
shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.
How wonderful. But when will that happen, and what can the House do if it does not like the report? What will happen to those who are sent home, and what will happen to their families? What misery will be caused? How many people who should have been allowed in will be excluded, and what hardship will be imposed by a bad system, a bad Bill and a clause that Opposition Members have tried to improve? No doubt even our modest amendments will be rejected.
I know that the Minister does his best to be kind in individual cases. I urge him to recognise the vast unkindness that clause 10 and the Lords amendment will do, and how little the monitor will be able to do to put matters right.

Mr. Jim Lester: I spoke about this matter on Second Reading. I share the concern of families whose connections are refused entry to attend important functions which any normal family would expect to be fully attended. When travelling in different parts of the world, I have talked to entry clearance officers; I genuinely believe that many try to do as fair a job as possible, given the circumstances in which they operate. In some countries—in Thailand, for example, and on the Indian subcontinent—they experience real difficulties.
On Second Reading, I suggested that offence is caused to those who issue invitations in this country, and that it might be worth while to consider sponsors and their supporters. In my constituency, the cases that cause the

gravest offence involve people who have made a considerable effort to invite visitors—parents, perhaps—and to fill in forms saying that no claim for social security will be made. They may have gone to further trouble by coming to my surgeries and asking me to countersign such forms.
Many such people are stalwarts in their local communities, and are constantly praised at various functions for being law-abiding and contributing so much to society. I sincerely believe that that is the case. When their relatives are refused entry, the impression is given that they are colluding with someone who is seeking to break the law, which gives enormous offence.
Many appeals are submitted after the wedding, or whatever, has taken place: the appellant realises that, by the time the appeal is heard, it will be pointless, but wishes to justify the original invitation. Appellants want to clear their names, and to make it clear that the invitation was genuine and that they would not collude with any illegal activity.
I have corresponded with entry clearance officers, and I know how they work. As I said on Second Reading, I want to help them. They will often set on one side the information given from this country. The applicant sitting before them may be very unsophisticated, with no knowledge with what the ECO is fishing for. The person who has invited the applicant may have a shop, and the applicant may be asked whether he will be working.
In normal circumstances, someone staying with a relative who has a shop would be odd not to help out, and that might be understood to mean work; but it would bring about an immediate refusal, because an application for a work permit is not being made. Unsophisticated applicants may be caught out—although it may not be intended—by questions with a legalistic base, which do not relate to the ordinary existence of those who issue invitations.
I agree with what Opposition Members have said. We want justice to be done. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment: to allow appeals to be heard more quickly so that families who are settled here can bring to this country wives and others who are at the end of a long appeals system, which to some extent is clogged by people who want to make short-term visits.
People usually issue invitations for important functions well in advance, and therefore should not be faced with refusals that can cause great offence. A doctor in my constituency did not speak for three months after his parents were refused the opportunity to come here. Fortunately, I was able to intervene, and eventually his parents were allowed entry. The shock and horror of refusal, after issuing a perfectly normal invitation to his parents to come and stay with him for a short time, caused tremendous offence to that doctor.
Many of us are very uneasy about there being no right of appeal. I do not know whether figures are available which show that people who came here on a visitor's visa stayed on illegally. I suspect that some have. It would be odd, given human nature, if that had not happened, but I suspect that the number is tiny, compared with the number of refusals.
I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about monitoring and about how account is to be taken both of the invitee and of the invitations issued by British citizens, who have every right to ask members of their families to join them here for important family occasions.

Mr. Boateng: The Government add insult to injury by their amendment of clause 10. The injury is the removal of the right of appeal. The insult is the imposition of a monitor. What we wanted, what we hoped to see, was some sort of watchdog. What we got was a poodle—not just a poodle but a blinded poodle, a poodle with its vocal chords cut, a neutered poodle, a poodle incapable of uttering so much as the barest squeak of disapproval against any action taken by an entry clearance officer or any immigration officer who determines an application to enter at a port of entry. That is not good enough.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the sponsors, to those who issue the invitations. The experience of many of us—I cannot believe that it is confined to those who sit on this side of the House—is that the most important feature of a sponsor, someone who issues an invitation, and very often the determining feature of a sponsor, is not the merits of a particular case, whether it be an invitation to a wedding, a christening or another innocuous family event, but the colour of the sponsor and the race of the sponsor who issues the invitation. There is no escaping the issue of racism that underpins this provision.
I would not be making a protest with the force and strength that I do about this amendment if I, or any other hon. Member. could be satisfied that racism was not involved in the administration of the immigration system. We all know that it is. We all know that a different standard applies to visitors from Canada, the United States and other areas of the world from that which applies to the Indian subcontinent, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. If one's skin is black or brown, the reality is that one will be treated differently. That is the truth of the matter.
7.15 pm
I wish that the Minister could say with conviction that that is not the case, but he knows that it is the case and that different criteria apply depending upon the origin of those in the community who issue the invitations and the place to which they are sent. That is the conclusion to which all of us, regrettably, have come. No one should easily make the charge of racism. All too often it is easy enough to cry "Racist", but those of us who deal with these cases day in, day out do not make that charge lightly. It is a charge that is borne out by the facts.
What is so nauseating about amendment No. 10 is that, having abolished the right of appeal, it proposes the appointment of a monitor. This person will be appointed by the Secretary of State. His functions will be determined by the Secretary of State. He will be resourced by the Secretary of State. He will be expected to oversee the role of the entry clearance officers.
That is not good enough. There must be a better way. Those who take an interest in these matters are left with the suspicion that an agenda has been embraced by the Home Office: to seek every opportunity to minimise the capacity for there to be some surveillance, some control over the operation of the immigration rules by entry clearance officers and others.
The suspicion is that the Home Office does not want the entry clearance officers to be scrutinised or to be accountable, and that it wants those who make these decisions to know that the opportunities for scrutiny and for people to be brought to book where there has been injustice will be minimised.
The Minister has received many representations. I do not question the fact that he takes our representations seriously, nor do I question the care and attention that both he and those who work for him give to them. However, it is precisely because of that care and attention, and precisely because the Minister knows that, time and time again, injustices have occurred, by virtue of the nature of the decisions and the judgments that have been reached, that there ought to be a right of appeal.
It is precisely because the right of appeal is to be abolished, which we condemn, as does everyone who knows or cares about this subject, that we say that this monitoring process must be capable of providing some redress for those who suffer injustice as a result of the omissions and mistakes of the officials who are charged with this responsibility.
The proposed monitoring does not go far enough. We do not accept it. We believe that it is right to seek to strengthen it. Even at this late stage, we hope that the Minister will go at least some of the way towards recognising that the monitoring process needs to be beefed up and made more accountable to this House, so that individuals can be given some hope of redress.

Mr. Gerrard: As many of my hon. Friends have already said, the clause to which the amendment relates includes some of the most controversial aspects of the Bill and those most likely to affect people already living in this country. I am referring to the abolition of the right of appeal for visitors who are refused entry clearance and the great distress caused by such refusals to the families involved. The abolition will also apply to students.
Lords amendment No. 10 allows for the monitoring of refusals of entry clearance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, not refusals of leave to enter. That is an important distinction, which can be significant for people who arrive as potential visitors from countries where visas are not required before coming to the United Kingdom. I shall say more about that issue later.
The Government have said that all refusals will be checked by senior officers. I think that, in saying that, the Minister was attempting to reassure people that appeals would be dealt with in another way. However, reconsideration by a senior officer of a refusal will not give people confidence that an independent decision has been made. The amendment contains the Government's alternative proposal, which is to check or audit refusals of entry clearance. As has already been said, that is no substitute for the right of appeal, but, if that is how we are to proceed, we should at the very least do it properly, which is the purpose of our amendment.
I was interested in the way in which the amendment was first moved in another place. The Minister there spoke of the intention—the periodic review by an independent person of a sample of cases in which entry clearance had been refused. It was stated that the person appointed to carry out the review should be seen to be independent of the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that entry clearance officers and managers would not know in advance which cases were to be examined and that the results should be made public. It is worth questioning whether the amendment matches even those very limited aims. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in more detail how the monitoring will work.
Who will decide which cases are to be reconsidered? Will it be the monitor or the Home Office? In what depth will the cases be examined? What access will the monitor have to files? Will he be able to examine files from British posts abroad? Will he be allowed to examine instructions to entry clearance officers and sit in on interviews to see at first hand how the process is conducted? Will the annual report contain details of individual cases that the monitor has examined? If publication is to be merely a statistical exercise, it will be relatively worthless. Of course, the statistics of the cases checked by the monitor need to be published, but we should also be allowed to consider individual cases, to know what the monitor thought of them and his recommendations for improvements, if necessary. What level of staffing will be provided?
One reason that the Government gave for refusing the appeals system was cost. Another was the backlog that was building up. When the formal right of appeal has been abolished, there are likely to be more refusals and, therefore, more cases that the monitor should review. Even if a reasonable sample is taken—for example, 10 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North suggested—we could end up with a system under which the sample to be considered will be as great as that under the previous appeals system, but with much less chance of justice because the system will not provide redress to individuals.
I am especially concerned about the people who are refused entry, an issue dealt with in amendment (e). It is, of course, perfectly possible for people to be refused entry as opposed to entry clearance. Those who are refused entry do not at the moment have a formal right of appeal. Many avenues, such as approaching a Member of Parliament, have been cut off. Many people who have dealt with such cases, for example, hon. Members who have taken up the cases of constituents who are refused entry when arriving for a visit, will know of the inconsistencies and the subjective nature of the decisions made.
Why is one person refused entry, another given temporary admission and another admitted? It is often extremely difficult for anyone dealing with such cases to see any distinction between them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the one distinction that can often be made is the colour of the skin of the person applying to enter the country.
Last year, I had the experience of dealing with someone who had been stopped at Heathrow, arriving for a visit. A constituent contacted me about the case and was appalled at the way in which the person had been treated at the airport and the fact that his word was being questioned. In fact, in that instance, the person was a white American who could hardly believe what was happening. I told him that it happened every day, certainly to black and Asian constituents, whose friends and relatives are stopped at the airport. They may be angry, upset, annoyed and appalled that their word is being questioned, but they are never surprised because they know that it happens as a matter of course.
People often get in touch when a visitor is coming and ask whether they can contact me if they need help when the relative arrives at the airport. It is expected that the visitor

will be stopped, especially where visas are not required and it is merely a refusal of entry—they are the cases which will not be monitored under the Government's proposals.
Our amendment would have the important effect of bringing refusals of entry into the monitoring system. Although such a provision might be inadequate, such cases would at least be considered in some form. Clearly, Lords amendment No. 10 will be accepted. As has been said, it is grossly inadequte, but if it is to be put into effect, our amendment, which should be accepted, would at the very least provide something of use. If the Lords amendment remains in its present form, it will be wholly inadequate.

Mr. Winnick: It is right that Members of all parties should be concerned about the abolition of the appeals system. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the Bill's effect on community and race relations.
It cannot be emphasised too often that this part of the Bill affects many people, some of whom were born here or have been in Britain for a long time, who are perfectly entitled to be here and who are part and parcel of our country. They might invite someone to this country—usually a close relative or friend—and then find that it is extremely difficult for the invitee to get in, especially if the sponsor is of West Indian origin or is originally from the Indian sub-continent. When I dealt with such cases some years ago, it was rare for my clients to be European. The explanation is perfectly simple—Europeans have much less difficulty in coming here as visitors than do people from the West Indies or the Indian sub-continent.
What should concern the Government is the number of refusals—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—that have been overturned by the adjudicator. Why is it that in such a large percentage of cases in which a person has been refused entry—obviously a minority of cases, that is not in dispute—and in which an appeal has gone before an adjudicator in Britain, the refusal has been overturned? Without even being able to see the appellant involved—he cannot do that—the adjudicator has judged that the decision taken by the entry clearance officer is wrong and the appeal has been upheld.
Instead of being concerned that so many cases have been overturned, the Government have decided to abolish the right of appeal itself. The Government seem so embarrassed by the fact that those decisions have been overturned that they have decided not to allow that to occur any longer by taking away the right of appeal.
7.30 pm
I remember representing a young Palestinian woman who had been in Britain for a short time. She worked here, she was perfectly entitled to be here and she was not subject to any restrictions. She invited over her brother who was living in a middle eastern country. The entry clearance officer decided that the brother should not be allowed to enter Britain because he would have no incentive to leave this country. Fortunately, an appeal was made and when the case went before an adjudicator, his sister, the sponsor, explained that she had not seen her brother for a long time and that she was able to support him for the short period in which he would be living in Britain. I am pleased to say that the adjudicator decided that the appeal should be allowed.
I find it difficult to believe that, under the Government's proposal for someone to monitor refusals, such a case would come to the surface. After all, how many cases will the monitor consider? We have been told that it will not be literally every case. He may not look at one in five or even one in 10. The case to which I have referred might not even have come to the monitor's attention if such a position had existed in the past and if there had been no appeals system.
It must be emphasised that the entry clearance officer decides whether a person should enter the country on the basis of the facts that are presented. He must be satisfied that the person will leave Britain at the end of his stay. Of course, that is why there are quite a number of refusals and why the appeals system is in operation.
If the Minister had told us that the appeals system was being abolished because of the number of successful appeals after which a person, having won the right to come here on a visit, decided to overstay, at least we could have had some sort of reasoned argument, even if we disputed that statement. As I understand it, however, the Minister has not said that the appeals system is being abolished because people have abused it by deciding to stay, against the law, after winning their appeal, and that it has been a job for the Home Office to locate those people so that it can turf them out. We have not had a reasoned argument for the abolition of the appeals system.
I said in an intervention that the appeals system is useful because when the original decision is being taken by the entry clearance officer, that immigration official working abroad has to be careful. He or she knows that if the person is refused and there is an appeal, he will have to write an explanatory statement which will go before the adjudicator. He will have to set out all the arguments—sometimes four, five or six pages long—to justify the decision. That will no longer occur under the Government's proposals. The entry clearance officer, however conscientious he or she may be, will know that if the answer is no, the chances of the decision being challenged are very slim.
The monitor may pick up the decision during his year's work, but most likely that will not occur. If a Member of Parliament writes to the Minister, it is, again, not likely that the entry clearance officer will have to go to the same lengths to justify his decision as he would if there were an appeals system. The new system will work against the person who is trying to come to the United Kingdom for a genuine visit.
As we know, there has been an outburst during the past week or so about the number of people coming to Britain. There has been an upsurge of racism among Conservative Members, although fortunately a small minority. Again, the race card is being played and, again, we are being told as we have been told previously of the hordes of people who are coming over to Britain and of the alien invasion.
We know how tight immigration control is in practice. We know how difficult it is for people to come over here. We know that primary immigration into Britain ended years ago. Those of my hon. Friends who take up cases all the time know how difficult it is for many people even to be able to come on a visit here if they come from the Indian sub-continent or from the West Indies. That is a fact. It is unfortunate that people who legitimately want to invite a close relative or friend or friend from the parts of the world that I have mentioned should find it even more difficult as a result of the Government's decision.
The Minister is a courteous person. I have found that whatever decisions he reaches, he is always willing to listen, unlike some of his predecessors. I am sure that my hon. Friends appreciate that we have a Home Office Minister who is courteous and who at least listens to our representations. However, he has a very bad brief. The Government have taken a wrong decision which is harmful to community and race relations. Perhaps even at this very late stage—one is obviously not hopeful—there will be further serious consideration of the proposal by the new Home Secretary.

Mr. Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has enormous experience of dealing with immigration and race policies, especially as he is a former chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that it would be unacceptable to replace a right of appeal with the administrative arrangements that he had in mind then. The whole House regrets the fact that he chooses now to add the official monitor to his list of administrative arrangements. That will not make up for the fact that the right of appeal will be removed.
On Second Reading and when we most recently discussed the matter, I listed a number of immigration officers and entry clearance officers in posts abroad. I shall not repeat their names for fear of further damaging their careers. I told the Minister then that those entry clearance officers were very concerned about the fact that the Government proposed to take away the right of appeal. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he has now had a chance to consult those entry clearance officers and that they are in full agreement with the Government's decision to remove the right of appeal and to replace it by the appointment of the monitor.
It is not clear precisely whom the Minister has in mind to be the official monitor.

Mr. Winnick: Lord Owen.

Mr. Vaz: Perhaps the Minister has in mind the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), the uninvited guest of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). Perhaps he will be chosen because of his unbiased and fair views on immigration policy. The House has a right to know how the monitor will be chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has suggested Lord Owen. Lord Walker may be another possibility, as he seems to sit on most of the quangos that the Government have created. The identity of the monitor is of great interest to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) refers to the proposal as being akin to putting in place a neutered poodle without vocal chords. I think it is akin to something even smaller than a poodle—perhaps a neutered chihuahua with no vocal chords. Clearly, the person appointed by the Minister will be responsible to him. It is clear that it would not be possible for that person to take the place of a well established appeals system that has proved in many cases to be one in which people can have faith.
I am concerned about the great backlog in the appeal system and I wish that cases could have been dealt with much more quickly. It is odd when there is a backlog simply to abolish the tribunal that is considering the cases.
The entry clearance officers in Bombay and in New Delhi told me that they want a fair system. They thought that it was wrong that they should have to second-guess themselves, because they could not possibly act impartially once they had rejected a case. Even if that case were given to another member of staff—perhaps a more senior member such as a first secretary—that person would still be in close contact with the other entry clearance officers. They preferred a system whereby "an independent tribunal"—dare I repeat the words that the Minister writes to hon. Members almost every week?—"set up by Parliament to consider independently the merits of the case" should consider that case.
I pick up on a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Ministerial decisions have been hived off to officials and quangos such as that which will no doubt surround the new official monitor. My hon. Friend's point concerned the way in which hon. Members have to deal with immigration officers at Heathrow airport and other ports. He is right to raise the serious problems that are now occurring because of the misuse of the guidelines by immigration officers.
Those in the Minister's private office know all about one case of mine because I rang up and had a rant to them about it. As usual, I was dealt with very courteously. Under the present guidelines, hon. Members must deal with officials at both the posts and at the ports. Instead of a reasonable conversation with the Minister or one of his officials, hon. Members must deal with officers who, by the nature of their shift pattern, have to go off after dealing with a case and interviewing a client. That case is taken over by another immigration officer who has no direct knowledge of the way in which the matter was dealt with. A relative of a constituent of mine was kept in detention for 48 hours because officials could not find an interpreter in the language of his choice. It cost the taxpayer more to keep that person in detention rather than to give him temporary admission.
When I asked for permission to speak to that person, I was told by the immigration officer that I would have to leave my constituency duties in Leicester and travel to Heathrow where I would be allowed to interview the person. The officer did not consider it appropriate in those circumstances for the person to be put on temporary admission, although the person's sponsor, who was well known to me, was prepared to give any guarantee necessary in order to ensure that that person was properly interviewed. It is a denial of the rights of hon. Members that we are not permitted to see such people at our surgeries in our constituencies.
Everyone has, to some extent, lavished the Minister with praise about how courteous, kind, nice and reasonable he is. I have yet to experience an occasion on which I have brought to the Minister's attention the case of an abandoned spouse when he has been courteous and offered me a cup of tea and said that that person could stay. Perhaps he will do so in the future.
If the Minister will not listen to the views of Opposition Members and also those of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who has yet again come out in support of the rights of people to be able to visit their relatives in this country, he should listen to voluntary organisations. Those organisations—such as the United Kingdom

Immigrants Advisory Service and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—have come forward with tremendous experience. Those organisations and others, including the churches, have urged him to think again about the removal of the right of appeal and I urge him even at this late stage to do so.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I have listened to the debate with care. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the refusal of temporary admission and to people's being kept in detention. I emphasise that temporary admission is considered and granted wherever possible. It must be for the immigration service to decide where that is not appropriate. I suspect—1 am guessing here—that the hon. Gentleman may have been referring to a recent case concerning a constituent of his who was a sponsor of someone who came from Malawi. I may have that right or I may have it wrong. I suspect from the name of the individual concerned that he came from northern Malawi. If so, he need have looked no further than to me if he wanted someone to exchange a few words in Chichewa with that individual—but I will leave it at that.
The House will be aware that the abolition of appeals against refusal of visit visas and the right of appeal against mandatory refusals has already been debated and passed in both Houses. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who opened the debate, talked of strengthening the monitoring process. In fact, the Opposition amendments seek to do more than that: effectively, they seek to reinstate the appeal powers.
The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 seek to reinstate some form of appeal process for visitors and others who lose their right of appeal under the provisions of the Bill. When my noble friend the Minister of State accepted amendment No. 10—it was, of course, Baroness Flather who moved it—he made it clear that we were not contemplating some alternative form of appeal system by which applicants or sponsors could seek to have the decision in an individual case overturned, but, rather, a periodic review or audit of a random sample of entry clearance refusals by an independent person, to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making were maintained. The Opposition's proposed amendments seek, in effect, to hijack that scheme and turn it into something very different. Not only do they seek to create an avenue through which to challenge decisions in individual cases; they would create a system that would be even more wasteful, cumbersome and ineffective than the appeals procedures that are to be abolished.
Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (f) seek to involve the Commission of Racial Equality in the process, either by having the Commission conduct the monitoring or by having it nominate the person who is appointed to conduct the exercise. The Commission performs a valuable service in promoting race relations, but the proposed monitoring of administrative procedures and decisions by entry clearance officers is simply not an appropriate function to give to that body.
Amendment (d) would make the appointed person rather than the Secretary of State responsible for determining the manner in which the monitoring should be conducted. We have made it clear, however, that the person appointed will have a wide degree of independence in the way in which he conducts the exercise. The choice of


which cases should be reviewed will be entirely his. However, the exercise must in practice be conducted within agreed guidelines on such matters as how long the exercise should last, how many posts should be visited and when the report is produced. Those matters must ultimately be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I refer here to the Foreign Secretary because this matter concerns the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Amendment (e) would extend the scope of the monitoring to cover refusals of leave to enter at United Kingdom ports as well as refusals of entry clearance. That is simply not practical. It has nothing to do with my noble Friend's amendment—nor is it necessary in order to maintain consistent standards at the ports.
Amendment (g) would require monthly rather than annual reports to be made to the Secretary of State. That implies a continuous monitoring process, rather than the periodic audit review that is envisaged. It is not, in our view, justified.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) talked about Somali asylum seekers and about family reunion in cases of exceptional leave to remain after four years. A distinction must be drawn between the granting of exceptional leave to remain and the granting of refugee status under the terms of the Geneva convention.
In an entertaining contribution, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that it was monstrous that this country should abolish appeals in such cases. However, he omitted to tell the House that we are the only country in the world to have such a system. Other countries do not have such a system—not because of a lack of innate fairness, but simply because they know that the system that we have employed for the past 20 years is cumbersome and does not work.
Millions of people visit this country every year. There were 5·7 million visitors in 1991, in addition to other short-term visitors, and that figure relates just to non-EC nationals. If we add the EC nationals to the total, it is clear that we provide a broad welcome. The House might wish to recall that more than 92 per cent. of applications for visit visas were approved in 1991.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to sponsors. I agree with them that some appeals have certainly been prompted by a sense of hurt on the part of sponsors when they face rejection. That is precisely why in Committee we introduced the various administrative improvements which include guidance for the sponsor, guidance for the applicant and a daily review at the station by senior officials. If there is swift feedback of additional information that alters the case, it will be dealt with promptly. If a refusal notice is issued, it will be clear that that will not prejudice further applications.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) referred to racism. I entirely reject his assertion. I remind the House that there is a clear-cut policy in the immigration service with regard to racism to ensure that there is absolutely no prejudice in the service. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of discussions, both in Committee and outside with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I have introduced a new system of auditing complaints against the immigration service which will be independent of Home Office officials. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an important step forward.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: I will not give way for the moment. I will break my generous rule for once because I am aware of the time.
The audit of the work of entry clearance officers will act as a check on that work.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) referred to refusals. It must make much more sense to consider the refusals each day rather than to launch into a cumbersome appeals system which may run for two years, by which time the event, in respect of which someone originally intended to come to this country, will long since have passed. I remind the hon. Member for Walthamstow, as I reminded the House earlier, that amendment No. 10 was not moved by my noble Friend the Minister of State. It was moved by Baroness Flather.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North, whose work as chairman of UKIAS was outstanding and distinguished, also referred to the need to control the work of entry clearance officers. I remind him that there will be a daily review by the senior officer in post in addition to the audit system that I have described.

Mr. Madden: Will the audit of complaints against immigration officers be published and reported to the House on a regular basis? The Minister has made great play of the daily review. Clearly hon. Members will be passed much information and complaints when applications are refused. Should we ring the Minister's office or that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when we want to pass on that information which ECOs around the world will be desperately anxious to receive on a daily basis?

Mr. Wardle: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. In response to his second question, when he is dealing with entry clearance officers, he must approach my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
I refer briefly to Government amendment (j). Amendment No. 10 requires a person to be appointed to monitor a sample of entry clearance refusals. The person carrying out that function will obviously have to be paid an appropriate fee and other expenses such as travel costs will have to be met. Amendment (j) provides the authority for those payments to be made. As I have already said, the scheme will be administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the appointment will be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
With respect to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, concerns have been expressed in both Houses that, unless the system is open to some form of independent oversight, inconsistent and arbitrary decision making may follow removal of the right of appeal. The Government intend to ensure that the entry clearance system is fair and consistent and that it is properly controlled. The Government were happy to accept amendment No. 10, which provides for the appointment of an independent person to carry out periodic monitoring of a sample of entry clearance work to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making are maintained.
I make it clear that we are not contemplating an alternative appeals procedure. This will not be a procedure for applicants or sponsors to seek to have a decision in an


individual case overturned. The monitoring will complement the administrative measures that I announced in Committee, including the daily review of refusals by entry clearance managers, to which I have already alluded.
Matters of detail are in the process of being worked out. However, I can confirm that the key features of the scheme that will be introduced are as follows: the monitoring will be conducted over a regular period; the person appointed to conduct the exercise will be independent of the Home Office and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; entry clearance officers and managers will not know in advance which of their cases are to be examined—that is where the control element lies; and the reports of the independent person will be made public.
I hope that that goes some way towards allaying the fears that have been expressed by some hon. Members that the removal of rights of appeal will lead to arbitrary decision making. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to accept the Government amendments.

Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 278.

Division No. 287]
[7.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cox, Tom


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Berry, Dr. Roger
Donohoe, Brian H.


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boyce, Jimmy
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Enright, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Etherington, Bill


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garrett, John


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godsiff, Roger


Coffey, Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce





Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David

Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin



Howells, Dr..Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jamieson, David
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rendel, David


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rowlands, Ted



Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry



Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Tipping, Paddy


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Vaz, Keith


Mandelson, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Watson, Mike


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Audrey


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Worthington, Tony


Milburn, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Miller, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. John Spellar.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ancram, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)






Ashby, David
Freeman, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
French, Douglas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fry, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gallie, Phil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baldry, Tony
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Garnier, Edward


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gill, Christopher


Bates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Batiste, Spencer
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Booth, Hartley
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Andrew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowis, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hannam, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Harris, David


Brazier, Julian
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hayes, Jerry


Budgen, Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Hendry, Charles


Burt, Alistair

Hicks, Robert


Butler, Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Horam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Jack, Michael



Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Congdon, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, Sir James



Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Blr'm E'st'n)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dicks, Terry
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Legg, Barry


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward


Duncan, Alan
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lidington, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacKay, Andrew


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul





Marlow, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Milligan, Stephen
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moate, Sir Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stephen, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sykes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Trirnble, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Ward, John


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Waterson, Nigel


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilshire, David



Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Amendment to the Lords amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (j), at end add—

'(3AB) The Secretary of State may pay to a person appointed under subsection (3AA) above such fees and allowances as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine.'.

Lords amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendment No. 11, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 12 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Charles Wardle; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [LORDS]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
This is my first opportunity to speak from the Government Benches as Secretary of State for Wales. I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities which that office entails. My duty will be to represent the interests of the Welsh people at the heart of government, and to argue the case for Wales when key decisions are being made. I firmly believe that the office of Secretary of State for Wales provides the best way of advancing Welsh interests within the United Kingdom, and the Union the best future for Wales in the wider world.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the proper place to debate the needs and aspirations of Wales and all its people. I look forward to those debates, which I hope will prove constructive as well as incisive.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has said that he will put the interests of Wales at the heart of his considerations. From time to time conflicts will arise between his known views in respect of, for example, privatisation and reductions in public expenditure and the interests of Wales. Such a conflict would have arisen two weeks ago about the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea, which his predecessor fought hard, on Welsh grounds, to retain there. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that when there is such a conflict between his known ideological predilections and Wales, he will give priority to Wales?

Mr. Redwood: That intervention is a little wide of the Bill, but of course I give the assurance that I will put the interests of Wales first. I am extremely happy with what my predecessor did on that issue and with the position of the whole Government, which is in the interests of Wales. The hon. Gentleman should not reach conclusions about what my views might or might not be on certain subjects from the cardboard caricatures that he has in his mind. He should listen to my arguments and my views. We can debate those at the proper time.
I want to continue the dialogue with local government and other important Welsh institutions, which my predecessor initiated, for democracy flourishes beyond this House as well as within it.
The motion is procedural. The Welsh language is an essential feature of the inheritance of these islands. It is spoken in Wales, enriching its cultural life and that of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government do not require people to speak the language against their will, but wish to give every encouragement to those who wish to speak and to learn it. I believe that those sentiments are widely shared in the House.
The motion relates to the constitution of the Standing Committee to consider the Bill. It is not concerned with, and has no implications for, the Welsh Grand Committee, which is established under Standing Order No. 98. The two Committees are entirely separate and distinct. I will be reflecting on changes that might be made to the role of the


Welsh Grand Committee following the discussions that my predecessor held with Opposition Members. Announcements will be made later: they are not for tonight's debate.
The general rule, so far as the House's consideration of legislation is concerned, is that Standing Committees for the consideration of Bills should have no more than 50 members and should reflect the composition of the House. For Committees considering Bills relating exclusively to Wales, Standing Order No. 86 also provides that every Member representing a Welsh constituency shall be a member of the Standing Committee.
It is not possible to constitute a Committee that satisfies all three requirements of that Standing Order—one with no more than 50 members, which reflects the composition of the House and which includes all Members representing Welsh constituencies. A Committee meeting all those requirements has not been constituted in recent years, irrespective of the party in power. The Labour party's Welsh Language Act 1967, its Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 all proceeded other than in accordance with Standing Order No. 86.
Opposition Members usually claim to represent a party of the Union. In 1950, 1964 and 1974 they had no qualms about legislating for England when they failed to win a majority of seats there. As a unionist, I accepted their right so to do.
I hope that we can build cross-party agreement on the substance of the Bill. I have pleasure in commending the motion to the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: We used to complain about the Secretary of State's predecessor and his over-emphasis on self-promotion and self-presentation. Following the right hon. Gentleman's debut tonight, that is not a charge that we will have to make against him.
I offer the Secretary of State my sincere congratulations on his appointment and wish him well in his post. I know that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies will be ready and anxious to give him advice on how he should do his job. Who knows, on occasion the right hon. Gentleman might even be prepared to accept it.
The Secretary of State will face a challenging few years. This is the first time to my knowledge that a Secretary of State for Wales has been appointed without any qualification. I am sure that all of us in the House and the wider Welsh community are conscious of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is in the post only because of the Prime Minister's need to maintain political balance in the Cabinet.
An outgoing right-wing Chancellor was sacked for his incompetence and his departure had to be balanced by an incoming right winger. No one was more right wing than the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), so in he came. There was nowhere obvious to put him, so he was given the Welsh portfolio. In that sense, his appointment is an insult to Wales and the Welsh people. We are now represented in Cabinet by its most junior member—a man without experience or qualification, credibility or mandate, who owes his very seat at the Cabinet table to the political caprice of the most incompetent Prime Minister in living memory.
Today's debate is a clear and early sign of the right hon. Gentleman's unsuitability. One thought above all should inform his judgment: neither he nor his party govern with the consent or the authority of the people of Wales. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman of all people should now be determined to work with the grain of Welsh opinion. However, his very first contribution on the Floor of the House as Secretary of State for Wales is to seek to remove from Welsh Members of Parliament the right to involve themselves with Welsh legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman has some redeeming features. When asked on Radio 4 for one good reason why he should be appointed as Secretary of State for Wales he said, "I like Wales." On HTV he went further and admitted that he had even visited Wales. Even some of the Tory party faithful in Wales have now rallied to his side. Eric Howells, showing that deftness of touch, that cutting intellectual edge that we associate with Welsh Tories, said that Wales was "only 23 motorway junctions" down the M4 from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Secretary of State might not have met Eric Howells yet —he is a Welsh Tory bigwig.
I am afraid that any good will that the Secretary of State may have enjoyed has been squandered tonight. It will be a long time before the Minister of State, Wyn O Fôn, recommends the addition of a new Druid, Sioni Coed-Coch, to the Gorsedd of Bards. I do not know about Sioni Coed-Coch, but I know about Sionis, and we in the valleys know when we have a Sioni before us.
Standing Order No. 86 is clear and its intention is precise. Some 86 years ago the House of Commons resolved that public Bills relating exclusively to Wales should be referred to a Committee constituted so as to include all Members with constituencies in Wales. The Welsh Office has argued in the past and the present Secretary of State argued today that paragraphs (1) and (2) are contradictory, so the entire Standing Order should be set aside. That was the argument advanced almost 12 months ago to the day by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
This morning I spoke to the Clerk of the House and his colleagues. Their interpretation is clear and their advice is that paragraph (2)(ii), which states:
for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to
Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales",
overrides any other provision such as that relating to the Committee reflecting the composition of the House. That is the advice of the Clerks of the House—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Refer to the Attorney-General.

Mr. Davies: The mechanism for resolving that problem is not, as suggested by my hon. Friend, to refer the matter to the Attorney-General, but to refer it to the Committee of Selection so that it may adjudicate. However, the Secretary of State rejects the advice from the Clerks of the House and does not have sufficient confidence to put the issue before the Committee of Selection. There can be no basis for the motion other than the Government's stubborn refusal to acknowledge their own weakness in Wales.
I have four arguments against the motion. First, the view of the House in 1907 was clear. Standing Order No. 86 has stood the test of time. Not once has any attempt been made to amend it. The motion breaches a convention


to which all parties have subscribed for 85 years, and no good argument has been advanced for breaching the Standing Order tonight.
Secondly, even if there were an inconsistency, as the Government have argued, surely the logical action would be to set aside those parts of Standing Order No. 86 that conflict with the rights of Welsh Members and restore Welsh Members' rights as enshrined in Standing Order No. 86. That is at the heart of the debate. It is beyond dispute that the Welsh Language Bill applies exclusively to Wales. The Government are now not only giving themselves a majority on the Committee, which is at least understandable if not acceptable in the current circumstances, but deliberately removing the right from half of all Welsh Members—all of whom are Opposition Members —to have any say in the detailed deliberation on a Bill with direct and specific relevance to their own constituencies.
The Bill contains provisions relating to the cultural inheritance of all of us in Wales, whether English or Welsh speaking, the civil liberties of many of our people and the education of all of our children. The development of the Welsh language, influenced as it is by geographical experience, past prejudices and present campaigns, can be a powerful, emotive and divisive issue with the potential to affect us all. It is an abuse of power and a travesty of democracy for Welsh Members of Parliament who seek to represent the views of their constituents to be prevented from so doing by a Secretary of State who is currently little more than an apparatchik.
It is no good arguing, as we have heard today, that the provisions have been set aside before. My third argument against the motion is that, with only one exception, whenever Standing Order No. 86 has previously been suspended, it has been with the agreement of the Opposition, and one of two sets of circumstances has applied. Either the measure to be considered in Committee was of a non-controversial nature, such as the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983 and the Caldy Island Act 1990, or it was set to one side by a Labour Government with the agreement of the Opposition for the particular purpose of facilitating that Opposition. That was done in the case of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976. Those precedents are clearly not relevant to the business before us.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman will agree that, in those cases, even when there was agreement with the Opposition, the process was carried out with the approval of the House, which is what really matters.

Mr. Davies: That is precisely my point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it for me. Today the Opposition's support is being withheld. In the case of the 1975 and 1976 Acts, the setting aside of Standing Order No. 86 was done not merely with the agreement of the Opposition, but specifically at their request. The fact is that there were not enough Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies to man the Committee. That is why they wanted the Standing Order set aside—so as to provide an Opposition spokesman. It is no good the right hon. Member for

Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) saying that that should be taken as a precedent. There is no precedent, and we bitterly resist the motion.
I hope that my exchanges with the Minister have made clear the fact that we do not regard the Acts of 1975 and 1976 as precedents. It is true that the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading, but there is common ground among all the Opposition parties about many matters of detail in the Bill, and common disagreement about them with the Government. I refer, for instance, to whether the Bill's provisions should apply to privatised utilities. It is inevitable that some matters will be pressed to a Division —hence the precedents of the non-controversial Bills of 1983 and 1990 are not relevant.
The one exception, mentioned earlier, was the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which was taken 12 months ago almost to the day. That measure was opposed in Divisions, but even so, the circumstances were quite different. That Bill was itself a precedent, being a private Bill that was later converted to a public Bill. There were differing views, held across all parties, on that Bill's merits, and it was highly localised in its application.
No such factor applies here. On the contrary, the Welsh Language Bill directly and exclusively affects the constituents of every Welsh Member, and there is a consensus among 32 of the 38 Welsh Members of Parliament. Surely these are the precise circumstances in which Standing Order No. 86 should apply?
Fourthly, the Secretary of State said that the Standing Order did not refer to the Welsh Grand Committee. I have to correct him: as he will know by now, Standing Order No. 86 specifically refers to that Committee:
Save in the case of—(a) the Scottish Grand Committee. (b) the Welsh Grand Committee".
All Welsh constituency Members are entitled, as of right, to sit on the Welsh Grand Committee. There is widespread agreement that its proceedings need to be reviewed. The previous Secretary of State conducted his own review, and the present Secretary of State said tonight that he would decide the course of that Committee.
If the new Secretary of State takes this arrogant and abrasive line on the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee, he will come rapidly unstuck. The Welsh Grand Committee belongs to Welsh Members of Parliament; it is not the plaything of the Minister or of the Government Whips Office.

Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to what I said, he would know that I said that my predecessor had conducted consultations with Opposition Members on this subject and was putting together his responses in the light of those consultations. It is in that spirit that I shall present the Government's conclusions, in addition to undertaking any other consultations that I think appropriate. I give the hon. Gentleman that promise. I hope that he will now remove from the record what he has just said, which went against the spirit of my remarks.

Mr. Davies: I shall certainly not remove any remarks from the record. The Secretary of State's earlier remarks are on the record; he has now compounded his error by saying that the former Secretary of State prepared his proposals for the review of the Welsh Grand Committee in the light of representations made to him. He may have conducted a review, but its findings were certainly not made in the light of the representations made to him. They were made in spite of those recommendations.
The former Secretary of State conducted his review making it clear initially that he wanted additional powers for the Committee to debate, to question Ministers and to deal with legislation. The Prime Minister recognised the democratic deficit in Scotland and promised a review as part of the "taking stock" exercise. That review was to include Wales. What better demonstration could there be of the Government's honesty of intent, of their commitment to more democratic forms of government or of their willingness to recognise their minority status in Wales than that the Secretary of State for Wales should have invited comments on how more devolved Government could work and then acted on those suggestions?
On 8 March in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, and on behalf of a majority of Welsh Members, I made a public and precise suggestion to the Secretary of State which, if it had been accepted, would have obviated the need for this motion. If the Government were interested in greater democracy and consensual politics, my suggestion pointed the way forward for them. We would have agreed not to oppose the Bill's Second Reading, which could have taken place in the Welsh Grand Committee. We would have agreed a timetable for the Committee stage. We would have agreed not to force unreasonable amendments, knowing all the time that the Government still had the security to right any unacceptable wrongs, as they saw them, on Report.
The Government's refusal to accept that suggestion was both unreasonable and myopic. The consequence is that Standing Order No. 86 has to be suspended, and many Welsh Members are excluded from detailed debate on the Bill. The Government's obstinacy provides a compelling reason for us to oppose the motion.
We must ask ourselves why the Government are embarking on this course of action. It cannot be to protect their legislative timetable or to avoid damaging or wrecking amendments to the legislation. That would not be in the interests of Welsh Members. It is patronising to suggest that Welsh Members would pass amendments that would damage the interests of the Welsh language or the wider interest of Wales and our constituencies. In any event, we have offered adequate guarantees covering these matters.
Why cannot the Secretary of State show a little more confidence, originality or initiative than his predecessors did? Why does the condescending, "we-know-best" mentality always have to take priority over flexibility, variety and political reality?
The answer lies in the nature of the Conservative party —and in this Secretary of State we find that party at its most ideological. To avoid this motion, the Government would have to accept that new arrangements should apply to our parliamentary procedures, at least in so far as they affect Wales. They would have to be prepared to compromise and to work with the grain of Welsh public opinion. None of that is acceptable to the present-day Conservative party. Its members call themselves unionists. The Secretary of State used the word again this evening. In fact, Conservatives are members of a centralist party. Only a party so insecure about its own future and so uncertain of its purpose would feel threatened by diversity.
As a former Trade Minister wrote in The Spectator last week, the Prime Minister heads
a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent and afraid of views different from its own.

That Minister was sacked for holding those views, yet his ideology is at one with the Secretary of State's. The one is sacked, the other promoted. That shows the extent to which the Government are in disarray; it is a clear demonstration of their incoherence. It is because the Government feel threatened that they want to set aside our constitutional arrangements for their own party political convenience—and Welsh Members will have none of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this is a procedural motion. I hope that Members will not be tempted to go off on to other topics relating to Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to join in the good wishes given to the new Secretary of State for his period at the Welsh Office.
It is slightly puzzling to learn that a transfer to the Department of Employment is regarded as promotion for someone who was the Secretary of State for Wales. Many Welsh Members think that the Welsh Office warrants a senior Cabinet post. After all, the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for most aspects of Welsh life. He is a sort of viceroy in Wales, covering many Departments. It was surprising that the former Secretary of State, who was born in Wales, should have thought it right to be transferred to another Department to which many Welsh Members, had any of them been Secretary of State for Wales, would have been reluctant to move.
The new Secretary of State will have been in the House for 10 years on Wednesday. [Interruption.] No, he will have been here for only six years on Friday. My mistake shows that he seems to have been here longer than we imagined. During those six years he has certainly shown himself to be clever. People in Wales have a sophisticated view of political life and enjoy their politics. To fulfil not only the expectations but the justified desires of the people of Wales during his term of office, he will have to show that he is not just clever but also wise.
I hope that, in demonstrating the wisdom which I am sure the new Secretary of State wishes to show, he will be willing to listen to representations on issues that are very much alive in Wales and which were being considered by his predecessor. I refer in particular to local government reform, which has had a far from unanimous welcome, especially in rural mid-Wales, and to the desperate problems that will arise in some parts of the Welsh economy if rail privatisation results in the destruction of the Welsh rural railways.
As you are moving towards the edge of your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall now deal with Standing Order No. 86. It is regrettable that the Standing Order should effectively be suspended for the purposes of a Bill that could not be more Welsh. It is quite extraordinary that the Government should think it right that only two thirds of the members of the Standing Committee should be Welsh Members. More important, it is extraordinary that the Government should regard it as right that half the Welsh Members should be excluded from the Committee.
Every Member representing a Welsh constituency has an interest of one sort or another in the Bill, and some of us have to represent conflicting interests in dealing with the Bill. It is vital that Welsh Members should be able to put


their views in Committee. The Government have not made a convincing case—they have barely tried to advance any case—for excluding Welsh Members.
On what basis do the Government think that they can circumvent Standing Order No. 86(2)? Surely the words "provided that" are overriding, as suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). If the Standing Order is not to be totally suspended for the purposes of the Bill, the Minister cannot override that proviso. The Standing Order makes it impossible for the consideration of a public Bill relating exclusively to Wales to take place without the inclusion of all Welsh Members.
How do the Government propose to deal with the question raised in the earlier part of Standing Order No. 86(2), which states that, in nominating Members to a Standing Committee,
the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated to the composition of the House?
I understand the Secretary of State's argument about the composition of the House—that needs no further explanation—but how does he expect the Committee of Selection to look at qualifications of non-Welsh Members who are to be nominated to the Committee if the motion is carried?
What qualifications would the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, from whom the Secretary of State is understandably now taking advice, regard as appropriate? Will those who have lost Welsh seats and are now retreads representing English constituencies be regarded as suitably qualified? I doubt that you could properly be advised, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is a suitable qualification. Would somebody who was born in Wales or has a Welsh grandmother or is perhaps a supporter of Wrexham football club be regarded as qualified to serve on the Committee?

Mr. Donald Anderson: What about someone who has a second home in Wales?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue. Will knights of the shires who have cottages in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) be regarded as qualified? I raise this as a serious issue and seek a serious answer. How will the Committee of Selection approach the problem?

Mr. Rod Richards: What difference will the suspension of Standing Order No. 86 make to the representation of Welsh Liberals on the Committee?

Mr. Carlile: That is a thoroughly insolent point and all that I would expect from the hon. Member from Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). He has made insults an art form in the House, but a tedious art form. Perhaps we may return to the issue under debate, which concerns me as the sole Welsh Liberal Democrat Member but which obviously does not concern the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. He will be the first Welsh Conservative Member to go at the next election. Obviously, he is perfectly satisfied to have Wales under-represented on the Committee, and his constituents should know that.
The people of Wales take this issue rather more seriously than the trivial, tiresome and irritating hon.
Member for Clwyd, North-West. They should be aware of his complete contempt for the interests of the people of Wales—a surprising contempt for a Welsh speaker. The hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading was deeply disgraceful and disappointing. Welsh people should know that he is prepared to see Wales sold short, at a democratic discount, in debates on the Bill.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to address the more serious points on Standing Order No. 86. He owes the House an answer, if he has one, and I look forward to hearing it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Wigley.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that our procedures allow for hon. Members to be called from alternate sides. Why should two Members in succession be called from the Opposition side? I do not challenge the fact that you called the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), but why do not Conservative Members have the guts to seek to take part in the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a somewhat spurious point of order, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman has put over his point.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I could see that you had little option but to call someone from the Opposition Benches, as nobody from the Government Benches was standing, as far as I could see, but there we are. No doubt the massed ranks of the Conservatives from Wales will come into battle at some stage to defend the new Secretary of State.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Might it not just be possible that even Conservative Welsh Members are not prepared to defend the indefensible and are uneasy about it?

Mr. Wigley: I can well imagine that Tory Members feel 'considerable embarrassment at the way in which the order is about to be gerrymandered by the House tonight and about the fact that the Minister of State, Welsh Office has been passed over once again for the position of Secretary of State for Wales.
In the past, I have found it necessary to call "I spy strangers" when I have seen strangers in the seat of the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall forgo that tonight in the interest of the time that we have left, but once again we see a Secretary of State for Wales who did not fight the last election in a Welsh constituency, who, by his own admission, does not have a great background of detailed knowledge about Wales and who comes to tell us in the first debate that the rules of the House must be amended to meet the convenience of the governing party and his convenience as Secretary of State.
However, I wish him well in his tenure of office, as the powers that he has are immensely important to my country. In the same way as we co-operated, where it was possible to do so, with his predecessors, we shall always do so where the interests of Wales are concerned—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Gentleman, but it is very difficult to do so. I trust that hon. Members will listen in silence. In particular, I expect those on the Front Bench to set a good example.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to some extent this is an argument within the family and I think that I understand the point that was made: that when we debate Bills—potential Acts —which specifically, totally and uniquely deal with Wales and its needs, we are talking about matters within the family. Those who are within the family know best what is required.
The motion highlights the inability of our system of government to pay attention to the needs and political priorities of the people of Wales, expressed through the ballot box, while at the same time abiding by the conventions and requirements of the governing party in Westminster. The two are mutually contradictory. That is the background to the standing order. As has been said, it was passed in the first decade of the century, following the 1905 general election, when the Conservative party did not win a single seat in Wales. Every seat was held by the Liberal party, with one exception—Keir Hardie. the first Labour Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil.
In the 120 years that we have had democratic representation in Wales, the Conservative party has never had the majority of Welsh seats. The standing order was introduced to meet the need to adapt the system of this place, were that possible—tonight we are beginning to realise that it might not be—to meet those different requirements in Wales and its different political values, aspirations and priorities. At that time, there were debates about setting up educational and health institutions in Wales to meet the needs of the people and there was a raging debate about the disestablishment of the Church in Wales—a debate that England is catching up on now. Against that background, it became clear that it was necessary to have a structure that would allow us at least some modicum of decision-taking on an all-Wales level as representatives elected from Wales.
We find now, as we would have found in that debate, and for a large proportion of this century, that it is not possible for the priorities of the people of Wales to be accommodated within the system of government that we have here. I personally, and my party, believe that that is impossible. This place will never adapt itself in a way that allows the people of Wales to take meaningful decisions at a significant level. Some colleagues believe that it might be possible, but what we are seeing tonight is a denial of that.
It would have been possible, by living with the implications of Standing Order No. 86, for Welsh Members of Parliament to consider the Bill, whether that were achieved by amendment of the maximum of 50 Members on the Committee, or through agreement whereby the Committee was scaled down in a way that reflected the balance of parties among Welsh Members of Parliament rather than the balance among all Members of Parliament. Another way to safeguard the justifiable interests of hon. Members representing different parts of Wales, where circumstances are immensely different, would be to allow a larger Committee.
A Committee on which a majority of Welsh Members of Parliament served, and therefore a Committee with a majority of Members against the Government, would have agreed to amendments that would not be acceptable to the

Government. So what? If the majority of the people of Wales want those amendments, and that desire is expressed through their democratically elected representatives, why on earth, even for that limited period between Committee and Report, could not that be shown in the constitutional mechanisms of the House? The Government's majority could overturn those amendments on Report, but the people of Wales would at least know the wishes and aspirations of their representatives. That hope will be snuffed out.
We shall now have a Committee on which all Welsh Conservative. Members of Parliament will serve, along with nine Conservative Members representing constituencies outside Wales. No doubt they will sit in the Committee taking not a blind bit of notice of what is going on except to vote for the Government where necessary. The Government will thereby get their majority.
All that shows that, whatever consideration the Secretary of State had in mind when he spoke of adjusting and amending the form of the Welsh Grand Committee, it was nothing more than froth. Unles he is prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to take a meaningful decision in an all-Wales context, and that Committee has a majority of Opposition Members, any tinkering will be meaningless. If he allows that, why is he not allowing Welsh Members of Parliament to have a real voice in the consideration of the Bill, which is specific to Wales more than anything else could ever be?
The Secretary of State may or may not be aware that 84 per cent. of my constituents speak Welsh as their first language. That is the pattern in some of the north-western and south-western parts of Wales. In other parts, such as Newport and Gwent, the percentage is small. The circumstances vary enormously from part to part and even within counties—for example, within Dyfed, between Ceredigion and south Pembrokeshire.

Mr. Rogers: So as to demonstrate the unanimity among hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, will the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Labour-controlled English-speaking areas of Wales, the greatest advances in the Welsh language have been made in the education system over the past 20 years, and that an enormous effort, has been made in the development of Welsh schools?

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have paid tribute before to people like Llew Heycock and the work that he did on the old Glamorgan county council. What he says is true of some Labour-controlled parts of the valleys. In other parts, it is regrettably not so true. For example, it is not as true of West Glamorgan as it is in Mid Glamorgan. He will know that from the demonstration that took place last week in the Eisteddfod. I hope that we shall see progress now in West Glamorgan.
The point is that circumstances vary greatly from area to area. That is what requires hon. Members from all parts of Wales, from Gwent and Gwynydd, and Clywd and Dfyed and every part within them, to serve on the Committee considering the Bill.
The feeling that has been expressed in Wales, across party boundaries and across the language divide, is that the Bill does not go as far as people had hoped it would. There are questions about status, about the way in which the Bill will impact on bodies that have been privatised or that will be privatised and about the way in which the langauge is used in the courts. Those are genuine


arguments that need to be advanced in the light of the experience that comes from Rhondda, Cardiff, Swansea, Merthyr, Llanelli, Pembroke, Denbigh, Carmarthen, Newport and all around. Wales is a patchwork of different experiences; it is a whole network of small communities. Each of the voices representing them should be heard in the Standing Committee.
To stand heavy on the rule tonight is not just to gain a slight political edge for the Government's convenience over the next few weeks. They will undoubtedly get their way in any case. What is happening tonight is a portent of the Government's attitude. I put it to the Secretary of State, in the strongest but kindest way possible, that, if he is to play a constructive part in the future government of Wales—there is a vacant role for statesmanship in building the structure of government in Wales, both locally and at the all-Wales level—what is happening tonight is a singularly bad way to start off down that road. I appeal to him, even at this late stage, to think again and to put the interests of Wales first on this occasion.

9 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) by posing this question to the Secretary of State —what would he lose by yielding to the overwhelming opinion of Welsh Members tonight? He would not lose anything of substance because, as he knows, on Report he could easily reverse any decisions with which he did not agree. Certainly, if he were to so yield it would be a symbolic gesture to the House that he was prepared to do his best to come into the tribe, to listen to the great consensus in our Welsh parties and not to try to impose some neo-colonialist view on us. I wonder whether, even at this late stage, he might ask himself, "Would I really lose anything by yielding? Would I not certainly gain something were I to show a willingness to listen?"
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on his speech. I say warmly and with sincerity that it was by far the best speech that I have heard him make in the House. It was extremely well researched and powerful. It is a tremendous credit to him.
The people of Wales wish the Secretary of State well. Why? It is because, whether or not we like it, he is the advocate of Wales in the Cabinet and if he does not do the right job for Wales we will all suffer. He did bring one welcome new quality—although only one—to the debate, and that was brevity. I wonder whether he will continue in that vein. I ask him and his colleagues to ask themselves whether, in the light of the overwhelming consensus against this procedural motion, they should not feel a little uneasy at what is being done tonight. It is wholly insensitive.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that he is and has always been a unionist. However, certain things might be done in the name of unionism which would be wholly contrary to the interests of unionism. He will unite all Wales against him if he persists with this stubborn and obstinate course.
I wish to make two points about the motion. First, in my judgment the debate raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy and style of Government. I would be out of order were I to make the proper points about the

lack of support in Wales for the governing party. The Government are, and will always remain, a minority in Wales, so it behoves them to deal with the affairs of Wales with constant and continuing sensitivity. Otherwise, the consequences will be counter-productive to the policies that they espouse.
There was great anger in Wales at the news of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Secretary of State for Wales. It was not because anyone had anything against him personally; with great respect, few knew him personally. He is known as a person of immense natural ability and intellectual stature, who served in the private office of the former leader of the Conservative party. However, the right hon. Gentleman has no experience of Wales. For him, Wales is wholly unknown territory.
It would be a great feat of imagination to comprehend the Secretary of State understanding the tribal emotions and sensitivity within Wales. At least his predecessors not only had personal contacts with Wales but were on the wet wing of the Conservative party. Therefore, their prejudices were more likely to be in the grain of Wales. The Secretary of State knows well that he comes with an image of being very much on the dry side of his party, against public expenditure and in favour of privatisation. All are policies that have no relevance to Wales and are likely to harm it.
All right hon. and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have something direct and relevant to say from their own experience, background, and occurrences in their own constituencies in relation to the Welsh language. Some will be denied the opportunity to make that contribution. That is anti-democratic. Right hon. or hon. Members representing Welsh seats will be denied—

Mr. Richards: indicated dissent.

Mr. Anderson: Of course they will be denied that opportunity, because only a proportion of Welsh Members of Parliament will serve on the Committee. Welsh Members with something legitimate to say on the subject of the Welsh language will be denied that opportunity in Committee, during detailed consideration of the Bill—but there will be parachuted into the Committee people who have nothing to contribute and who will be there simply to ensure a Government majority.

Mr. Redwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the purpose of Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading is to give just such an opportunity to right hon. and hon. Members who do not serve on the Committee to participate in deliberations on the Bill? In a large parliamentary party such as the Labour party, do not colleagues work together so that the best arguments and points are marshalled in Committee? That is the duty of a democratic Opposition and I look forward to receiving the benefit of that advice and of those viewpoints in Committee.

Mr. Anderson: I represent a unique constituency—Swansea, East—and would not want to delegate my views to any of my colleagues, however much I respect them. Also, I do not want to give the Secretary of State a constitutional lecture, but he knows that the Report stage may be relatively short and that there may or may not be a Third Reading debate. It will be in Committee that detailed consideration of all the important matters will be given. The Secretary of State is misleading the House if he thinks that, by excluding from the Committee a number of


Welsh Members of Parliament who have a proper interest in the Bill, he is advancing in any way democracy in Wales or the cause of unionism that he purports to espouse.
I am bound to concede that, in a unitary state. which we have, there will be occasions when the Government, because an item of legislation is essential, perhaps ideologically part of their programme, will insist that they have a majority throughout its progress. That may be true even of matters of particular relevance to Wales. They might include water privatisation, which figured largely in the Government's manifesto and which gives rise to clear party divides on an ideological basis.
The Bill in question is not one such piece of legislation. It is almost Wales against the rest. There is a considerable consensus in Wales on the Bill and that was shown by the fact that there was no Division on Second Reading. The Government cannot draw an analogy with water privatisation, where they must use their majority, juggernaut-like, to get it through.
Of course there will be differences, which will include such questions as whether the Post Office—or some other utility moving from the public to the private sector— should take with it the obligations placed on it under the Bill. If so minded, the Government could reverse such matters on Report. Far more important, however, is the

fact that the only argument against imposing the "burden" of the Welsh language obligations on the private sector —including privatised utilities, and utilities that will move from the public to the private sector in future under the present Government—is that those obligations lay a burden on the industries involved which might deter investors and provide a disincentive for jobs in Wales.
If that is the Secretary of State's argument, let me give him my answer. First, we in Wales might see a different balance between economic interests and the interests of the language. Why not listen to the consensus that emerges from Wales? Secondly—this, too, is a fundamental argument—if retaining the language obligation on companies moving from the public to the private sector may put jobs at risk, should not we in Wales decide the matter, rather than having it imposed on us by an artificial majority in a Committee set up by the Government?
When Britain confronted countries in the old Commonwealth that sought to move from a colonial to an independent status, the cry from any of the old leaders was, "Please allow us the democratic right to make our own mistakes." If ours be mistakes—and I do not concede that they are—will not the Secretary of State and his Unionist majority allow us in Wales to debate the issues and, if necessary, "make our own mistakes"?

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I was going to address a few personal words to the new Secretary of State, but he seems to have disappeared for the moment.
If Standing Order No. 86 was designed to do anything, it was designed to accommodate precisely this sort of Bill. There is no clear party divide on the Bill; indeed, if we had the chance to establish a Welsh Grand Committee, we should discover a good many cross-party currents, and a good many differences and nuances in where each of us would stand on any issue. It is absurd to table a motion such as this in relation to a Bill for which the Standing Order was perfectly designed way back in 1907. Why not give the chemistry of the Welsh Grand Committee a chance to work? I do not believe that a Whip would be imposed: even the Opposition would not dare to impose one—certainly not with me on the Committee, because I have my own views about the balances and sensitivities involved in a Bill of this kind.
Sadly, I fear that there will be a party political divide if we consider the Bill in an old-fashioned Standing Committee of the kind that we have all suffered—and, at time, enjoyed—when party lines are drawn. Inevitably, if the Government draft in ill-assorted Conservative Members, the aggro will start and the Committee will be diverted to party battles. There is no place or reason for such battles on a Bill such as this. There could be discussions within our parties and also cross-party debates.
Has the Secretary of State for Wales read the debates on the Bill in the other place? They are the saddest debates that I have read for a long time. Lord Cledwyn, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas did not advocate radical change. They did not make huge demands on the Government to change the Bill. Theirs was modest and moderate advocacy. However, the reply of the fourteenth English earl, Lord Ferrers, a Minister of State, Home Office, was absolutely wooden and insensitive, although the points made to him by many Members of the other place had been put sensitively to him.
That shows why this House should handle the Bill in a different way. We do not want a repetition of what happened in the other place: wooden responses from Ministers, backed up by members drafted on to the Committee for no reason other than that they have to fill it up and form the majority.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I rise to defend the speeches made by my noble Friend in the other place. They proved sufficiently satisfactory for the other place to divide only once.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister of State has been around for too long. There is a civil service appointment of permanent under-secretary. There is now a permanent Minister of State in the Welsh Office. This is a new creature. Footnotes to British constitutional practice will be written, based upon the Minister of State's tenure of office.
I led a deputation from Aberfan and Merthyr Vale. I shall not go into the details, but Lord Ferrers is one of the politest men I have ever met. The women in that deputation left the meeting shaking their heads. They did not believe that such people still existed. The Minister of

State tempted me into making that observation, but it is true. The Government's defence in the other place was put forward by the fourteenth English earl. His reply suggested that the Government had handed us a great gift; how dare we ask for more?
We cannot afford similar debates in our Committee stage. There are certain debates where the party lines are drawn—for instance, on the Welsh economy, education and so on—and where the outcome of the debate, if not the vote, is known. In this case, we genuinely do not know the outcome of the debate. If I am given the chance to serve on the Standing Committee—although I should love to serve on a Welsh Grand Committee—I should welcome the opportunity to find out where we stand on the way that the Welsh language will be promoted and developed.
According to the 1991 census, in communities such as mine, only 8 per cent. of the people speak the Welsh language. However, 15 per cent. of the younger generation speak Welsh. All sorts of interests could be debated. That will not happen, however, in a Standing Committee of the kind that the Government want to force upon us.
Why not have a Welsh Grand Committee? Why not let the chemistry of that Committee work? If the Government do not like the outcome, they have the power, on the Floor of the House, to reverse the Committee's decisions on Report. However, they would at least have to defend the reversal of those decisions, unlike the sad and sorry story in the other place.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the excellent debate in which many of my hon. Friends have made telling speeches. There has been a terrific consensus between the 32 of the 38 Members of Parliament with Welsh constituencies and perhaps some sympathy from one or two Conservative Members, although they have been noticeably quiet today. We have heard only one intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). As usual, the Conservatives do not have the courage to defend the Government. The Government are taking away the democratic right of hon. Members who represent the various communities in Wales to defend and strengthen the law on the Welsh language.
I echo briefly the congratulations and good wishes extended to the new Secretary of State. We know of his background, academic prowess, ability and vision, but I hope that he will temper the latter during the next few months or years in the Welsh Office. I hope that he will try to reach a consensus, because he will find that in Wales people want to work together for the benefit of all. If he can work with the grain rather than against it, we shall revise our opinion of him in due course.
The great democratic deficit in Wales is shown up at every general and local government election. Wales is overwhelmingly left of centre, which causes problems under the rules of the House when it comes to setting up the Standing Committee. However, the interpretation of Standing Order No. 86 is clear—we should all have the right to participate in discussions about the unitary authorities when local government is reorganised and about the Welsh language. The counties of Wales all have very different linguistic backgrounds, and all 38 of us should have the opportunity to articulate our views. However, the Committee is to consist of 19 Welsh


Members of Parliament and, in addition, nine English Members who will not be able to understand the problems facing a minority language in an overwhelmingly English culture. It is clear that the English Members are merely Lobby fodder for voting.
At the most recent sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee on 8 March in Cardiff, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), made it clear that he wanted to strengthen that Committee's powers. Two or three times in his speech, and in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), he almost threw down the gauntlet to us, asking us to help him strengthen the Committee's powers to make up for the democratic deficit. It is therefore very disappointing to learn that the Committee will be pushed to one side when we come to debate the Bill which deals with an issue that is overwhelmingly Welsh.
Last year, there was only one sitting in Cardiff, whereas there are usually three or four. I believe that the Bill and any discussions on unitary authorities should be dealt with by the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I echo the welcome given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Change is very stimulating. We have been lucky to have had a succession of excellent Secretaries of State for Wales. Although I am sure that all of us who are prepared to be open minded are sorry to lose David Hunt—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the right hon. Member for Wirral, West.

Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt).
It is an opportunity for a fresh approach. Labour Members have cast aspersions about the credentials that my right hon. Friend brings to the task that faces him. That demonstrates the arrogance of the left in politics, and especially the arrogance of the left in Wales, where there seems to he an assumption that only left-wing politics can be good for Wales. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will prove them wrong.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as left-wing arrogance to suggest that the wishes of voters should be taken into account and should be reflected in the composition of the Committee?

Mr. Sweeney: Of course I do not. The wishes of the voters are being reflected in the composition of the Committee. It would be strange if the principle, which is commonly followed throughout the political system, that the party in government should have a majority when important decisions are to be taken were not followed in this case. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee, where there is also a built-in majority for the Conservative party, set that precedent. Conservative Members on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee who do not represent Welsh constituencies make an important and valuable contribution.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) suggested that it would be impossible for hon. Members

representing constituencies outside Wales to recognise the importance and contribution of minority languages. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been present when my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) spoke when this subject was last before us. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech in which he showed his understanding of how the Cornish language had fallen into disuse.
It is important to have a good debate in Committee. I am sure that the three Labour Members who serve on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee feel that they are not denied any opportunity to express their views and that they have no difficulty in doing so. I am sure that other Labour Members, who are not members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, have no difficulty in communicating to their colleagues and ensuring that their views are reflected.
I had not intended to speak this evening, but in reaction to what has been said by Labour Members, I felt that it was important to say that I strongly support my right hon. Friend tonight.

Mr. Allan Rogers: This debate is of great importance to some of us, although from the faces of Conservative Members, it seems to be a bit of a game for them. The debate is important to Labour Members because it brings together two specific elements. First, it is proposed to overturn a Standing Order that has been in existence since 1907, which was put there to measure and to safeguard the uniqueness of Wales in the unionist structure.
The second element is the issue of the language. If there is anything that makes us in Wales feel in some way different—there is nothing wrong in being different—it is that the Welsh language exists and that many people speak it. I say that as a non-Welsh speaker. I am very proud to have been part of the process of retaining and developing the Welsh language as a county councillor, with the late Lord Haycock, who, as leader of Glamorgan county Council, was responsible for establishing Welsh language schools in south Wales. If it were not for people such as Lord Haycock, the Welsh language would have gone completely. Since then, many other local authorities have contributed to the language in south Wales in particular.
Many colleagues in the Labour party have supported the development of the Welsh language, because we think that it is important. The two issues come together tonight, and they are of fundamental importance to us. I say to the Welsh Conservative Members that there are precedents for people who sell out their country, and, quite frankly, if they support the motion tonight they will be selling out Wales. They will sell out the language and the uniqueness of Wales—for whatever trivial purpose that they may construct. I do not know whether the Whips are putting pressure on the Welsh Office, but the Welsh Office ought to have enough guts to stand up to the Government Whips on this issue. The Conservative party and the Welsh Conservative Members are selling out the language and selling out Wales. They ought to have enough guts to vote against the motion tonight.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: We have heard many a fiery speech from Opposition Members tonight. That shows both the passion and the emotion with which the language has been and is regarded in Wales.
I refer in particular to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the assessment of the legal position vis-a-vis Standing Order No. 86. I was disappointed to see that he was reading "Erskine May" earlier, because if the Government's position turns out to be true, "Erskine May" is irrelevant. That is the crux of the matter.
This is the most important Welsh measure of the century. I echo the words of many Opposition Members who, although they are not Welsh speakers, have an equal stake in its development and an equal emotional attachment to the language. The language is at the very heart of the Welsh people. It is the true meaning of us as a people, and of our difference—"vive la difference" as was said earlier.
The suspension of Standing Order No. 86 is in my view an insult to Welsh Members. This is not a political football, thank heaven. Only one hon. Member on Second Reading debased the argument and turned it into a political free-for-all. That hon. Member has left the Chamber following his two minutes' worth. That is nothing new.
The matter is not a political football. I am sure that every Welsh person of every political colour should be able to respect the language and do his best to nurture it. The Secretary of State said earlier that he hopes that there will be a consensus in Committee—that the whole point of the Committee is for the exchange of views for the building up of a consensus. If that view is true, why should Standing Order No. 86 be suspended? What is the point in that?
The suspension is an insult to our constituents. It is an insult to us as hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies, as was the fact that the Secretary of State last week went to Swansea on one of his visits—probably his second to Wales—but declined to make the 10-minute journey to the Urod national eisteddfod. That is the jewel in the Welsh crown and the largest youth festival in Europe. He did not want to go. That is how interested he is in the Welsh culture, and no doubt in the subject that we are debating.
The Secretary of State must listen to what is said by Opposition Members. We represent the whole of Wales and we do not have a short-term political view of matters. We represent the people of Wales and we have their interests at heart. Their interests will be denied by the suspension of Standing Order No. 86. I believe that the Secretary of State has made the worst possible start and I trust that he will change his mind.

Mr. Martyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a point of order about the motion which I would hope to put helpfully in the form of four questions, the first of which relates to the motion itself. Is it a motion for the amendment, repeal or suspension of Standing Order No. 86? The House is entitled to know whether it is such a motion.
If it is such a motion, what is its nature as such? With respect, it looks to me as though it might be a motion for suspending Standing Order No. 86, at least by implication. It certainly cannot be a motion for amendment or repeal.
If it is a motion for suspension of Standing Order No. 86, is it in a proper form? It does not say in the text that it is a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86. If it is such a motion, has the requisite notice been given in accordance with the usual practice of the House?
Finally, if this is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86, the House is entitled to know whether it is in order for us to pass a resolution that purports to override the proviso contained in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86.
I submit that the answer to my first three questions can be encapsulated briefly in the sentence, "No, this is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86." If I am correct in that regard, how on earth can it be in order, without such a motion, for the Government to seek to pass a resolution which does indeed purport to override the proviso in paragraph (2)?

Madam Speaker: To some extent, the hon. and learned Member answers his own question. It is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86. However, the motion is of course in proper form because if it were not I would not have accepted it for debate this evening.

Mr. Carlile: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. if I may be permitted another brief go.
If it is not a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 86, how, without such a motion, can the House effectively dispose of the proviso in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86, which appears to be an overriding proviso governing the membership of Standing Committees relating to Bills which concern only Wales?

Madam Speaker: When hon. Members consider the motion on the Order Paper, they have to determine for themselves how they interpret it. I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the motion is in a proper and acceptable form. Therefore, hon. Members. must decide for themselves whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. They must then divide the House accordingly.

Mr. Martyn Jones: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a pont of order? [Interruption.] I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman was rudely, or perhaps not so rudely, interrupted earlier.

Mr. Jones: I was interrupted in a very gentlemanly way, Madam Speaker. I want to speak on the issue for a couple of minutes as I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate because I was away on a Select Committee visit.
The issue is of such importance that all hon. Members within Wales should have the right to speak on it. By the turning over of Standing Order No. 86, the six Conservative Members for Wales will sit on the Committee as of right while fewer than half the Members representing the majority party in Wales—the Labour party—will sit on the Committee. That cannot possibly be fair. To ignore the Standing Order is an insult to Wales. It is comparable to the change in unitary authorities, which ignores the fact that we need a regional tier of government for Wales.
I shall not speak at length, because we have had much debate. All contributions have been made by the Opposition, apart from one small intervention by a Conservative Member. That shows the depth of feeling within Wales, within the majority party in Wales, and among the majority of Welsh Members.
We have now finished weeks of debate on Maastricht, much of which was about subsidiarity. We have an opportunity for the Government to put subsidiarity into practice on this issue. Can we not do that? I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position. I hope that he will choose to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and put subsidiarity into practice and give Welsh Members of Parliament the right to discuss this item of Welsh business.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I advise the Secretary of State that I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the debate which occurred in 1907. My direct predecessor, Reginald McKenna, who was then President of the Board of Education, moved the Standing Order. It now falls upon myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends to defend the Standing Order. It has been continuously in force ever since that date and it has certainly stood the test of time. Except for today and last year in respect of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. it has never been the subject of controversy, challenge or debate.
True, of course, it has been set aside by Government motions—the Secretary of State has indicated that—in respect of specialist and technical Bills such as those in respect of Caldey island and Conway tunnel and, in 1975, the Welsh Development Agency Bill, and the Development of Rural Wales Bill in the following year. However, those circumstances were wholly different from the circumstances that we are considering today.
The move was never challenged in the 1970s. It was carried through by a system of consensus and agreement. If anything, the then Labour Government were helping the then Conservative Opposition to have better representation on the Committee. There was no conflict between what is and was a Labour Wales and a Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) said, the proportion of Welsh Members of Parliament who considered those Bills was about 14 out of 16. Today we are considering only 19 out of 28. That involves bringing in reinforcements—English Tory troops—to top up the Committee.
Another point that has not been mentioned is that, back in the 1970s, many Labour Members of Parliament were also Ministers. It would have caused considerable difficulty had they served on the Committee. The most significant point that the Secretary of State made was that he absolutely rests his case on his interpretation of the Standing Order. However, we know that the provision that all Welsh Members of Parliament deal with Bills which are exclusively Welsh overrides everything else in that Standing Order. That is the crux of the issue.
What makes the Government's attitude so eccentric and bizarre is that there is considerable consensus on the Bill in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and others referred to that point. There is an incontrovertible case for all

Welsh Members to take part in the detailed consideration of the Bill. It affects every part of Wales and every constituency in Wales.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said, it does not matter whether 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of people in his constituency speak Welsh or whether only a small number in my constituency in Gwent speak Welsh. We all have a right and a part to play in deliberations on the Welsh Language Bill because of the burgeoning of Welsh-medium education, interest in the language itself and all the different attitudes that exist. Each of the 38 constituencies in Wales has a story to tell with regard to the Welsh language and its consideration by the Committee.

Mr. Redwood: If there is this enormous fascination with the Bill, as I hope there is, why was it that only six Labour Members wanted to speak on its Second Reading? Why did other Members representing Wales not take advantage of that opportunity to make their speeches? Why is it that only half the Opposition Members for Wales have turned up for this important debate? Tonight is an opportunity for debate. Where are those hon. Members?

Mr. Murphy: I do not think that this is the time or the place for the Secretary of State to talk about the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It was only by accident that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) decided to speak.

Mr. Sweeney: It was certainly not an accident. I had every intention of being present.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman said that he never intended to make a speech in the first place, but perhaps his speech was not accidental.
The Second Reading dealt with the principles of the Bill, which commands much consensus and agreement. There is an awful lot of difference, however, between Second Reading and the detailed consideration and scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. That is the time when every hon. Member representing Wales should be involved, and quite properly, in its consideration. Hon. Members who represent England may speak on Report. Two such Members spoke on Second Reading; one because his mother came from Aberavon, the other because he wanted to talk about Cornish. They can speak again on those matters on Report, but not—it is important to stress this—in Committee on the Welsh Language Bill.
The real reason for today's debate is that the Government are simply afraid to entrust the Bill to a Committee in which they cannot guarantee a majority. Their behaviour is a combination of arrogance, uncertainty and panic. That was spelt out in the debate in 1907 when a Conservative Member said:
The representation of Wales is, for the most part, in the hands of one party.
He meant the Liberals; today it is in the hands of the Labour party. Another Conservative Member said:
It would be impossible for a Unionist Government"—
an interesting phrase, given what the Secretary of State said—
to entrust legislation to Grand Committees … because no Government would consent to send legislation to Committees on which they were in a minority.
If the Secretary of State had told the House that that lack of a majority is the chief reason for his decision not to send the Bill to a Committee consisting of every Member


representing Wales, we would at least have understood the politics of that. The right hon. Gentleman has come up with the nonsense about the Standing Orders not providing proper or evident reason for sending the Bill to such a Committee.
Despite the pitfalls and the holes in which the Government have got themselves in the past few weeks, they are highly unlikely to fall over a minor defeat on a minor amendment to the Welsh Language Bill in Committee. Even if they did, they would, of course, change the Bill on Report. Have they completely lost their confidence that they cannot trust hon. Members representing Wales to deal with a Bill concerning the use of Welsh language in their own country?
The previous Secretary of State attacked the concept of devolution many times during and before the election. I am sure that the present incumbent will follow that practice. The former Secretary of State argued that he did not want devolution because the procedures of the House were such that there was no need for it. He said that we had the Select Committees, the Grand Committee and Welsh Question Time and asked why we wanted devolution. On 8 March in Cardiff he said:
In Wales, we have always considered ways to improve the structure of government … The government of Wales evolves constantly.
I propose that I, as Secretary of State for Wales, should invite all the party leaders in Wales to discuss how the Grand Committee could develop, and to present ideas about how to proceed."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Comtnittee, 8 March 1993; c. 2–3.]
This is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider such matters since March, and what a consultation and answer the Secretary of State has now given us. He has decided to bypass the Welsh Grand Committee to deal with the most consensual Bill on Wales to emerge for a decade. There was no vote on it on Second Reading, yet the right hon. Gentleman has still decided that that Grand Committee and all hon. Members representing Wales cannot deal with this Bill.
Compare that attitude with what is happening north of the border in Scotland. At least the Secretary of State for Scotland has issued a White Paper, "Scotland and the Union: a partnership for good" in which he set out that he intends to enlarge the powers of the Scottish Grand Committee to consider legislation. He suggests that there should be Special Standing Committees that can take oral evidence on Bills. Would not that have been a good idea for the Welsh Language Bill? The Secretary of State for Scotland talked about those changes as emphasising the important role of all Scottish Members of Parliament.
What a contrast such an approach makes with the grudging, laggardly approach of the Welsh Office and Welsh Ministers. They have not changed since the debate in 1907, when the opponents of Standing Order No. 86 said that they thought that it would lead to the break-up of the Union. Even the Minister of State was not present in 1907, but had he been there, he would certainly have been a Liberal. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, no Tories were returned in 1905.
Another speaker in the 1907 debate said that behind the proposals of the Prime Minister lay a process for devolution. Would that that had been the case—instead of all the Government attempts to override the rightful position of Welsh Members of Parliament, there would

have been a proper Welsh Assembly in Cardiff to deal with the issues and consider the importance of the Welsh language.
The abandonment of the modest Standing Order on a Bill that attracts support from both sides of the House is typical of a Government who reduce the role of anyone elected in Wales and choose, instead, to govern Wales on the basis of unelected, unrepresentative quangos. The Government are so terrified of any debate or criticism that they cannot allow Welsh Members to consider a Bill that has support in every part of the House. I suspect that few measures this Session will so graphically and vividly show up the weakness and continued arrogance of the Government, and I urge the House to vote against the motion.

Sir Wyn Roberts: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for wishing him a few years in office [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Caerphilly looks at the Official Report he will see that he did so. Those good wishes were echoed by the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I must not forget the good wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney).
As I listened to today's debate it seemed that there was still some confusion in the minds of Opposition Members about why the motion is absolutely necessary. That confusion prevails in spite of the clear reference in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the inconsistency contained in Standing Order No. 86. It simply is not possible to constitute a Committee that satisfies all three criteria of the Standing Order—a Committee that reflects the composition of the House, includes all Members representing Welsh constituencies, and does not exceed 50 members. However one tries to form such a Committee, one of those requirements will not be met.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall not give way as I want to deal with the various issues raised.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he had taken advice and been told that the representation of Welsh constituencies was the most important of the three requirements. However, that advice holds good only in so far as it is endorsed by the House. I am sure that that is right.

Mr. Ron Davies: The independent, authoritative advice given by the Clerks of the House is that paragraph (2) overrides all other provisions—that is, the one conferring on all Welsh Members of Parliament the right to participate in the Committee. I hope that the Minister will accept that he is asking the House to judge between the Clerks' advice and his exercise of voting powers in the Lobbies. If the matter is to be tested by political division, of course he is right. Our argument is that, on any objective basis, the logic and proof of the past 86 years stands.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question about the precedents, which are undeniable. I refer to the Welsh Development Agency Act


1975 and to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, which was passed by a Labour Administration. The circumstances do not matter; motions similar to this one had to be agreed. By the end of this evening the House will have expressed its will that there should be a Committee as established by this motion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret having to say this, but the Minister of State has clearly stated that Standing Order No. 86 is inapplicable to any Bill relating solely to Wales, because, he says, it is impossible to apply it to the present membership for Wales. That being so, is not the proper course for the Government to table a motion to amend or suspend the Standing Order, not to fiddle about and cheat their way around it as they are attempting to do?

Madam Speaker: It is for the Minister to explain precisely what he means. I hope that that is what he is about to do—if he is given an opportunity.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The motion is quite clear: it begins with the words:
notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86",
and it goes on to describe the kind of Committee that should be established.
I remind the House that the motion relates to a Government Bill. I may not have been around in 1907, but I did read the debate to which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred. It was the then hon. Member for Ashford who rightly said that no Government would consent to sending legislation to Committees on which they were in the minority.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly tried to tempt us into setting up a Committee in which we did not have a majority with the promise that only reasonable amendments would be tabled. Whether we could agree about what was reasonable is open to question, however. He said that we could correct what we thought wrong on Report. That is not a serious proposition for a Government Bill

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you now give the House a ruling on whether the Government motion is, in your view, an attempt to suspend Standing Order No. 86?

Madam Speaker: The motion before the House is in order; otherwise, as I said earlier, it would not have been placed on the Order Paper. It is for Members of the House to decide the issue. I am sure that, if the Minister is allowed to pursue his case, he will explain precisely what the motion means, so that Members can decide for themselves on the issue.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We are absolutely clear that. as this is a Government Bill, we should have a majority on the Committee.

Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Wyn Roberts: No, because I have less than a minute left.
We are quite convinced that this is the best way to deal with the Bill. There is no suggestion that the Government should not have a majority in Committee and, of course,

the Committee will represent the composition of the House. We could have had a smaller Committee but its size will ensure representation for the minority parties.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Welsh Language Bill [ Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister spoke about the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 and said that they were precedents. I was the Minister in charge of that legislation and my recollection, which has been assisted by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), is that the procedure followed then was to facilitate and assist the Opposition. It was not a precedent. I was generous in advising those who were in charge of the proceedings of the House. It is quite wrong to regard assistance for the Opposition as a precedent for what the Government intend to do.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's description of the circumstances surounding that legislation. I dare say that special circumstances attached to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 as well. That was implied by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). There have been cases since then, and it is an established fact that no Government can process their own Bill in Committee without a clear majority.
I welcome the fact that there will be English Members on the Committee. I also welcome the participation on Second Reading of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). The presence of English Members on the Committee will reaffirm the fact that the Bill was promoted by the United Kingdom Government in support of the Welsh language, which is part of the British heritage as well as that of Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for raising another one. You have listened with obvious attention to the Minister of State, who has explained with his usual care the thinking behind the motion. You always take great pains to protect the interests of Back Benchers. The motion, if passed, would exclude half the Welsh Back Benchers from membership of the Standing Committee, despite the provisions of Standing Order No. 86(2)(ii).
The right hon. Gentleman has made quite clear what the Government are trying to do. He said honestly, as always, that Standing Order No. 86 is completely unworkable in present political circumstances in connection with any Bill that relates solely to Wales. He told us, by corollary, that what the Government seek to do can only be to suspend the operation of Standing Order No. 86, not in so far as it relates to the House in general but in so far as it relates specifically to Wales. That is akin to introducing a new Standing Order.
If that is what the Government wish to do, surely the protection of Back Benchers and the good procedure of the House demand that the Government should table the appropriate procedural motion. I invite you to rule as to


whether this is, de facto, an attempt to suspend Standing Order No. 86 and, if it is, that the Government should table a procedural motion to that effect.

Madam Speaker:: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced advocate, but he must not try to interpret to me what the Minister has said. I listened carefully. I have also explained that the motion is in order. Therefore, it is for hon. Members, Ministers and Back Benchers alike, to determine, after what they have heard, how they should vote in the Division. If they wish to pursue the matter further, there are parliamentary channels open to them to do so.
I have no alternative now but to put to the House the motion on the Order Paper, as I am required to do.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 243.

Division No. 288]
[10.05 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)



Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Ashby, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Booth, Hartley
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fry, Peter


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butler, Peter
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)



Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coe, Sebastian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Colvin, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Congdon, David
Hague, William


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham



Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew

Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mates, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moate, Sir Roger
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ward, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry






Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Young, Sir George (Acton)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Etherington, Bill


Adams, Mrs Irene
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainger, Nick
Fatchett, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John


Austin-Walker, John
Fyfe, Maria


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry
Gapes, Mike


Battle, John
Garrett, John


Bayley, Hugh
George, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Gerrard, Neil


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Godsiff, Roger


Berry, Dr. Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Betts, Clive
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyce, Jimmy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John




Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cann, Jamie
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoyle, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dafis, Cynog
Khabra, Piara S.


Darling, Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ron


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum





McFall, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McKelvey, William
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McLeish, Henry
Rooker, Jeff


McMaster, Gordon
Rooney, Terry


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Mandelson, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Alan
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mudie, George
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Edward
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Olner, William
Walley, Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike


Pendry, Tom
Wicks, Malcolm


Pickthall, Colin
Wigley, Dafydd


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pope, Greg
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Prescott, John
Wray, Jimmy


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Dr Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Alan Meale.


Rendel, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords] shall consist of twenty-eight Members, including not fewer than nineteen Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

Orders of the Day — European Community Documents

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No, 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11011/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 1st April 1993, relating to the future development of the Common Transport Policy; notes that the emphasis on completing the Single Market and ensuring that it works properly, on subsidiarity, and on the promotion of sustainable mobility consistent with the principle of freedom


of choice, is in line with the Government's aims; and looks forward to considering further proposals arising from the White Paper in due course.

CARBON ENERGY TAX

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7018/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by HM Treasury on 4th February 1993 and the Department of Environment on 14th May 1993, relating to carbon dioxide emissions and energy, SEC(92) 1996, relating to the energy consequences of the proposed carbon/energy tax, 8328/92, relating to cooperation between public utilities and auto-producers of electricity, 4182/93, relating to limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, 7847/92 + CORI, relating to limitation of carbon dioxide emissions through energy efficiency (SAVE programme), 7757/92, relating to promotion of renewable energy resources (ALTENER Programme), 7569/92 and 5705/93, relating to monitoring mechanisms for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and 7157/92, relating to limitation of carbon dioxide emissions and improvement of energy efficiency; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the Community's action in these fields continues to take full account of United Kingdom interests.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on llth May, be approved.

That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11 th May, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Law and Order

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. David Evans: I am disappointed to find it necessary to take up your time, Madam Speaker—and the House's time—to bring to the attention of a Conservative Government the current problem of law and order. In my view, that problem has been caused by a succession of weak-kneed, pathetic Home Secretaries—not least the immediate past incumbent, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I will not detail the many examples of the lack of will demonstrated by those Home Secretaries; I will simply remind hon. Members of the scandal surrounding the lawlessness of criminals on the roof of Strangeways prison. Night after night, we had to witness on television the humiliation of the prison service, the police and—even more important, in my opinion—the law-abiding citizens represented by the Government and the Home Secretary of the day, who categorically refused to take the action for which the circumstances cried out. Those criminals should have been given 10 minutes to get off the roof, then a police marksman should have been told to knock them off one by one.
We are told that borstals are to be up and running in three years' time; but my constituents want to know what we are going to do with these thugs at this moment. They want to know what will happen this afternoon, not what will happen in three years.
In recent years, the chattering classes—especially that lot opposite—have generated new concepts, the effect of which has been to complicate and fudge previously simple and widely supported principles.
Let us take the concept of security. I have always believed in the uncomplicated principle that the fundamental duty of any Government is to defend and protect their citizens: they must punish lawlessness to provide security. In the real world, evil, if it is allowed, will spread like wildfire. Security is about fighting fire with fire. It is a basic fact of life that some people only understand the language of force. To provide effective security, Governments must deter crime with the threat and, where necessary, the use of force.
In the international arena, Conservative Governments have successfully followed the simple rule of security. It was a Conservative Government who sent British troops in to protect the Falkland islands; it was a Conservative Government who deployed British troops in the Gulf to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson; it was a Conservative Government who prevented the Communist bloc from transgressing the iron curtain with the threat of nuclear weapons. Despite all the whingeing and whining of the CND crackpots on the Opposition Benches, we stayed loyal to the tried and trusted principle of security, and, naturally, our way prevailed.
In the international arena, Britain is a world leader in security. Sadly, that basic principle has not been adopted in the domestic arena; instead, our policy on crime has been hijacked by a bunch of woolly-jumpered, woolly-tongued do-gooders who come up with increasinly complex terms and theories. They sound persuasive and feasible on the surface, but in reality they are slowly but surely leading us to anarchy.
These silver-tongued softies would like us to believe that a law breaker is not a criminal, but a victim of society who should not be punished—God help us. The little yob has rights: he should be counselled and cosseted. The bleeding hearts have bent over so far backwards to protect the criminal that we have ended up with a social revolution on our hands. The results speak for themselves. We are now in a crazy situation: burglars and violent thugs merely receive cautions, while a young lad is jailed for whistling at a girl.
The brother of the boy jailed for whistling—a Mr. Wayne Posell—is reported to have asked:
Has British justice gone mad?
He added:
How can my brother be sent to jail for whistling when drink-drivers and violent criminals are fined peanuts or let off with a few hours community service?
The answer is that we have allowed our crime policy to be fudged by those who live in a world of pink candyfloss: they would not know a criminal even if he bashed them over the head with a copy of The Guardian and drove off with their 2CVs.
I shall not linger on the subject of car theft, as I know that it is a bit of a sore point with the wriggler from Monklands, East, the Leader of the Opposition, who recently had his chauffeur-driven Rover stolen. As Oscar Wilde might have said, to lose one's car is unfortunate, but to lose one's chauffeur-driven car is bloody ridiculous.
My constituents feel far from secure. A wave of violence and theft has engulfed the country, and them. They feel that the Government have not done enough to tackle the problem. I agree. Crime has risen constantly since the second world war, in times of boom and bust. We have had a succession of Home Secretaries who have merely tinkered with the problem. They have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the flashy terminology and complex theories of the do-gooders.
I hope that the new Home Office Ministers realise that community sentences have not only failed to tackle the problem but have increased it, by pursuing a conscious policy of diverting more and more hardened and serious. criminals away from custodial services and instead placing them on community sentences.
By allowing these criminals to mix with young and naive first-time and petty offenders, the Government have created the wrong kind of role models for these impressionable youngsters, who will view these hardened and persistent offenders as living proof that they will not be punished if they carry on offending. Rather than a deterrent, community sentences are effectively encouraging youngsters to pursue a career in crime.
Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating a policy of throwing every criminal into prison [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, for a start, it would cost the taxpayer a fortune, and for what? So that some law-breaking scoundrel can lounge around in a cell eating three meals a day—with access to television, games areas and a holiday camp atmosphere—and can have plenty of time to plan his next crime as soon as he is let out. Where is the punishment? Where is the deterrent?
The Minister no doubt saw the article in the The Sunday Telegraph on 2 May. This is what it said:
Are you enjoying your porridge?
The article followed a circular that was sent to all prisoners, issued by the Home Office. Some of the questions included were:

Is your supply of underwear adequate? Is the prison canteen sufficiently well stocked? Is the midday meal served at the right time? Is the food up to scratch? Is the prison clean enough, or is it dirty? Is it too hot, or too cold? Is it too noisy? Is it too quite?
That says it all. Then there are complaints that two in a cell is too many. I think that two in a cell is not enough. There should be more to a cell. And if they spend 23 hours locked up in a cell, so what?
I hope that the Home Office will take heed of the public outrage. Community sentences are merely tinkering with the problem. They have been tried and tested, but they have failed. The alarming rise in crime tells us that many in our society believe that crime pays. Forceful measures are the only solution to this sickening spiral of lawlessness. We must return to the basic principle of security, where one must deter evil with the threat of force and, when necessary, with the use of force.
Take the recent case of a young mother who was waiting in broad daylight for a bus in the Holloway road, one of London's busiest thoroughfares. Three black men bundled her into a car at knifepoint, took her to a cemetery, beat her unconscious and then raped her. What would be the use of locking up these animals at a cost to the taxpayer of £20,000 per year per prisoner?
The only way to punish them is to ensure that they wish they had never committed a crime and guarantee that they could never do it again. The solution is castration. It would make the streets safer overnight. Such animals would think twice before doing it again. I am sick to death of the whingers who churn out nonsense about corporal punishment undermining the dignity of the individual. Who cares about the dignity of a beast? What about the dignity of the victim?
A few weeks ago, two teenagers—Paul Chapman and Philip Barber—were given prison sentences. Chapman received 10 years for rape and Barber received eight years for abetting. They attacked Ethel Denyer, a 76-year-old spinster, while she was lying in her bed. She was repeatedly stabbed with a toasting fork, beaten with a chair leg until it snapped, throttled, punched and kicked. She was then raped. Chapman and Barber got away with £26. Ethel Denyer later died from the ferocity of the attack.
Neither boy has shown a trace of remorse for the evil deed. Within an hour of the attack, the pair were seen laughing and joking in a kebab shop. During their three-week trial, they sat sniggering in the dock. What about the dignity of Miss Ethel Denyer? Those boys should have been flogged or cat-o'-nine-tailed—that would have wiped the smirks off their faces. They should have been castrated. Some people fail to grasp the fact that we are dealing with dumb and violent beasts who respond only to the law of force. Those two animals will be out of prison in five years, robbing and raping once again.
Some people argue that capital punishment is never justified as it violates the human right to life but, without a death penalty, there is no effective way to distinguish a crime such as theft from a crime such as cold-blooded murder. Let us take the case of the ruthless murderer, John Edwards. In April this year, 22-year-old Maria Turvey was taking her seven-month-old daughter, Charlene, for a walk in the Fairley Hill estate in Luton. Edwards jumped out of a van, seized the baby from the buggy and threw her into the back of the van. He shot Mrs. Turvey in the head with a shotgun and later shot baby Charlene. Mother and baby were murdered by a maniac with a gun. Edwards


should not be given a prison sentence which he will spend lounging around with petty thieves. He should be hanged. All murderers should be hanged.
The new Home Secretary has a history of supporting capital punishment, although I read only last week that —surprise, surprise—he is reconsidering his position. I hope that he is not to be added to the long list of Home Secretaries who funk the issue. I hope that he has the strength to overrule his Home Office bureaucrats and wishy-washy advisers and to return capital punishment to the British legal system. It would mark a triumphant return to the simple principle of security in the domestic arena, where criminals would be left in no doubt that, when they contemplate a murder or participate in acts such as armed robbery, which so often tragically result in death, their own lives are on the line.
I have concentrated on the need to deter and punish crime. However, it is also important to identify and understand the origins and causes of crime. I believe that the problem we face today originates from a breakdown of discipline in society. Too many parents pay too little attention to their children. As a result, housing estates are littered with children roaming the streets long after dark, engaging in petty theft and vandalism and making a general nuisance of themselves. Why? Because their parents could not give a damn about where their children are or what they are up to.
I wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) for supporting me in this debate on law and order.
Finally, on behalf of my constituents of Welwyn and Hatfield. I do not want a wishy-washy, civil servant, Home Office reply to the debate. I should prefer the Minister to go away and then come back to tell the British people that the Conservative Government have the will and the heart' to look after their citizens in a way that they can take for granted, which enables them to go out at night, safe in the knowledge that they will not be mugged, raped or murdered; and that, on returning to their homes, they will find them as they left them and not, as so often happens now, find them ruined by someone whom the police have little or no chance of apprehending. I ask the Minister, are we going to protect our citizens—yes or no?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Yes, we are. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on raising the very important issue of law and order tonight. I am glad that he put his points across in his customary forthright manner, because he is articulating not just what his constituents say, but what the constituents of most hon. Members and millions of ordinary people throughout the country say. I have never seen the House so full for an Adjournment debate. That is a measure of the concern felt, certainly by Conservative Members.
Crime and the fear of crime are rightly at the forefront of the public mind. It is essential that we give such an important issue our sustained attention and action. We are

concerned about rising crime. Crime is. of course, rising in all western nations;'it is not a uniquely British problem. Thankfully, violent crime is only 5 per cent. of all recorded crime. Some of the recent increases are due to more people reporting crimes that were previously hidden because we have encouraged them to do so. These are facts.
My hon. Friend and all our constituents want to know what action we intend to take against those who threaten their lives, their families, their properties and their right to move freely about this country. I shall tell them, but I shall first briefly state some of the things that my predecessors have done, because my predecessors deserve credit.
First, since 1979, we have increased the police force by 16,500 policemen. More officers are being put back on the beat. Since 1983, more than 6,300 officers have been released for other duties by bringing in civilian staff. Since April 1991, we have opened 12 prison establishments, creating 6,994 prison places. We have given the courts power to pass longer sentences to protect the public from violent and sexual offenders. We have increased the maximum penalties where we have found them to be inadequate.
We have, for example, increased the maximum penalty for child cruelty from two years to 10 years, and the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs from 14 years to life. For attempted rape, we have increased the maximum penalty to life imprisonment. We have acted against the so-called "joyriding" offences, introducing tough new penalties under the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 enables the Attorney-General to take action against excessively lenient sentences. We have also given the courts power to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers and people convicted of other profitable crimes.
I say to my hon. Friend that all those actions are part of our strategy to bear down heavily on crime and to protect the innocent. The Government's commitment to taking action has been demonstrated by the plans announced by my predecessors to act against those who offend on bail, to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, to amend the sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that have caused so much public concern and to raise the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and drink-driving.
The protection of the public, the detection and punishment of offenders and the prevention of crime will continue to be a top priority of this Government, of this Home Secretary and of this Minister of State. Tonight I take the opportunity to state my approach in tackling the problems of lawlessness in society.
It is my profound belief that the honest citizen is entitled to a decent country in which to live and that it is the Government's duty to bear down hard on crime. People are crying out for Britain to be made safe for decent people. I intend to ensure that the system is on the side of the law-abiding, the honest and the decent. I tell my hon. Friend that I shall listen to the opinions of ordinary people who are afraid of crime and the victims of crime before I listen to the sociologists in their woolly jumpers with their theories on offenders.
I do not want the police to become demoralised because the young offenders whom they catch time and time again are walking free and putting up two fingers to justice. We shall ensure that persistent young offenders who have not responded to community supervision do not walk free in future.
The House will be well aware of our plans to protect the public from those young criminals and their crimes. I can tell my hon. Friend and the whole House that the necessary legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to give the courts the power to sentence the hard core of persistent young offenders to a new secure training order.
We must give the criminal no hiding place. We will ensure that the neighbourhood watch schemes are re-energised so that no criminal is safe walking down any streets. I want people working in partnership with the police and volunteering to be part-time special policemen and police officers so that every part of the country is covered by the eyes and ears of the vast majority of good, decent. honest citizens.
Let us have no political nonsense about surveillance cameras being Big Brother. In public areas, they can help cut crime, and the public want more cameras and less crime, not the other way round. I therefore welcome the wish on the part of some local authorities to use surveillance cameras. They should not be deterred by concerns over the use and storage of tapes. I will address those concerns if they are genuine, because I do not want anyone to have an excuse not to use such cameras.
Just as the criminals must have no hiding place, so I believe that we, the honest decent citizens, must come out of our hiding places. Why are we the ones hiding behind locked doors, afraid to go out? We can come out of our hiding places by confronting crime, reporting crime and helping the police.
I particularly liked the words of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis at the end of last week. Talking about Operation Bumblebee, he said:
'I want the burglar to start being frightened rather than the law-abiding citizen. I would like it to be the burglar who will he running scared, not ordinary members of the public. It is time for London to fight back.
I say that it is time for all of us to fight back and we can start by backing the police and working in partnership with them, supporting them in their effort to protect our communities. If crime prevention is to be effective and long-lasting, we must all, as parents and neighbours, play our part.
My hon. Friend called for hanging, flogging and castration—though not necessarily in that order. He knows my views. Personally, I regret the fact that the House rejected capital punishment by a large majority in 1990, but I must tell my hon. Friend honestly that I can see no prospect of the present House of Commons changing its mind, and that there is no point in engaging in a further debate on that issue in this Parliament.
Corporal punishment also runs contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights—I know that that will not be good news to my hon. Friend—and it would be a fruitless exercise to try to reintroduce it. Of course, it is still right and proper for parents to administer reasonable corporal punishment to their children if they so choose.
Action against crime must involve a criminal justice system that is seen to deal effectively with offenders. In the very near future, we shall be tabling amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is in Committee at the moment, that will let magistrates and judges have full

access to the past record of criminals. The courts can properly punish and deter only if they have the full criminal history and know whether or not criminals have responded to past sentences. That news will be welcomed by all Conservative Members.
We shall also table amendments scrapping the over-restrictive unit fines system, which certainly did not work as anticipated. Our proposals will require magistrates fully to consider the means of an offender when imposing a fine, but will not contain a statutory mechanism for calculating the fine. It will be for magistrates to make full use of their discretion in determining the most appropriate fines in individual cases.
We shall fulfil our manifesto commitment to get tough on those who persistently commit crimes while on hail for other offences, by inviting Parliament to agree to amend the Criminal Justice Bill to give the courts a statutory power to increase the length of sentence for someone who offends on bail. That was a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
We are determined to see such offending reduced to the lowest level possible. A prosecution right of appeal against the grant of court bail provides another important safeguard, and in that context, I note the good progress that my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is making with his Bail (Amendment) Bill, which is now in another place.
This tough action will probably result in more people in prison. Full prisons are of course a problem, but so are the empty streets because honest people are too afraid to go out. It should he the criminals who should be hiding behind locked doors, afraid to go out because they will be caught, or unable to get out because they are already in prison.
I hope that I have given my hon. Friend tonight a flavour of the approach that I shall bring to this job. He knows that there are no easy solutions and that crime is constantly changing and evolving as criminals become ever more devious or brutal in the way they operate. That is why we must constantly make changes in our approach and try to get one step ahead of the criminals.
I congratulate my predecessors in the Home Office on the action they have taken. If my predecessor as Member for Penrith and the Border, Lord Whitelaw, had not launched the biggest prison building programme and police recruitment drive this century, we would, to put it bluntly, be in queer street right now.
As criminal behaviour changes, so our responses will change. However, the one thing that will not change is my determination to strengthen the position of the innocent and of the potential victims and victimss. We shall do that by listening to them and by hearing what they have to say. After all, they are our constituents—and the only reason that we are here. It is about time their voices were heard.
As we introduce these new measures to take tough action on all aspects of law and order, I look forward to the continuing robust support of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, and of all my hon. Friends, in the Division Lobby.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.